SUPPORT AND ADVICE THROUGH HEALTH SYSTEM FOR HATE CRIMES VICTIMS: A SOCIO-SANITARY APPROACH

ROBERTO MORENO LÓPEZ
CÉSAR ARROYO LÓPEZ

Editors

Contributors

César Arroyo López
Fabienne Baider
Andreas Chatzitoffis
Eduardo Díaz Herráiz

Patricia Fernández de Castro

Juan Antonio Flores Martos

Mónica Gómez Medrano

Natalia Hipólito Ruiz

Rosa Marí Ytarte

Roberto Moreno López

Montserrat Pulido Fuentes

Marija Pokos

tirant humanidades

Valencia, 2021

Copyright ® 2021

Todos los derechos reservados. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro puede reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento electrónico o mecánico, incluyendo fotocopia, grabación magnética, o cualquier almacenamiento de información y sistema de recuperación sin permiso escrito de los autores y del editor.

En caso de erratas y actualizaciones, la Editorial Tirant Humanidades publicará la pertinente corrección en la página web www.tirant.com.

This e-book was co-funded by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020)

The content of this document represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

www.stophatedamages.eu

© Varios autores

© TIRANT HUMANIDADES

EDITA: TIRANT HUMANIDADES

C/ Artes Gráficas, 14 - 46010 - Valencia

TELFS.: 96/361 00 48 - 50

FAX: 96/369 41 51

Email: tlb@tirant.com

www.tirant.com

Librería virtual: www.tirant.es

ISBN: 978-84-18656-85-9

MAQUETA: Innovatext

Si tiene alguna queja o sugerencia, envíenos un mail a: atencioncliente@tirant.com. En caso de no ser atendida su sugerencia, por favor, lea en www.tirant.net/index.php/empresa/politicas-de-empresa nuestro Procedimiento de quejas.

Responsabilidad Social Corporativa:
http://www.tirant.net/Docs/RSCTirant.pdf

Dignity, equality and human rights

César Arroyo López1

Roberto Moreno López2

Juan Antonio Flores Martos3

The present document is framed within the European project “SHELTER: Support and advice through health system for hate crimes victims”, co-funded by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020) (809541 Ref. ). The document contributes to the dissemination to the general public of the main products of research, training, awareness raising and an specific protocol for the health system.

The recognition of dignity and equality as constitutive and central elements in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights4, from which the rest of the articles are derived, is one of the great turning points in recent history. On the one hand, because of the implications of its universality and inherence for all human beings (Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, 2015)5, and on the other, because of the ways in which it has led to profound changes in the fundamental bases of contemporary states, as it came to “materialise in texts of international law and in recent national constitutions” (Jurgen Habermas, 2010) 6, and went on to transcend and permeate many other areas, “becoming an ethical paradigm for contemporary societies and a criterion for assessing the moral development of states” (Martínez Bullé-Goyri, 2013)7. This achievement and the overall expectation that comes with it is not exempt from criticism and revisionism: such as those who argue that the Declaration is nothing more than a Westernised vision that seeks to impose itself in a global sphere, heir to the old colonialism and its moral superiority, in which Eurocentric, androcentric and individualistic values and conceptions prevail8; or those who call for its updating in a changing globalised scenario in which new emergencies, needs or rights arise9.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dignity is intertwined with the other fundamental rights and values in a manner whereby they all feed into one another. . The rest are derived from its conception, although trying to explain it or determine its objective is difficult without drawing upon the other principles10 (Alberto Oehling de los Reyes, 2015). The concept of dignity has undertaken a long and complex path, historically, philosophically and socially (Mejías Quiros, 2005)11 and, at present, its very content and definition is still a matter of debate (García Cuadrado, 2012). So much so that it was not until the end of the Second World War that it was incorporated into a text as a “foundation for fundamental rights and freedoms” (ibidem). We will interpret dignity here as it was defined by the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency): “the right of all human beings to be valued as individual and social subjects, with our particular characteristics, simply because we are persons” (UNHCR, 2018)12. In this sense, it recognises the right to be oneself and to the development and realisation of one’s identity. The incorporation of dignity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the great achievements in the shaping of a common and shared ideal, of a humanist nature, in an internationally accepted document, one which has developed ethical norms and subsequently legally binding texts. This is something that to date had not occurred in any of the declarations or codifications of rights that had been developed previously (McCrudden 2008)13.

For its part, the notion of equality, another great pillar that supports the weight of the rest of the Declaration, proclaims that all human beings are, without any distinction whatsoever, subjects of rights and therefore consolidates the universalisation of these rights14. Regardless of their particularities and, therefore, “beyond the undeniable differences between human beings –due to physical features, intellectual capacity, social class, educational level, skin colour, etc.– the common quality of enjoying basic rights makes them equal as persons” (Torres Falcón, 2009)15. However, the idea of “equality”, as was the case with “dignity”, is also fraught with certain complications and conceptual disagreements, especially when in-depth analyses are carried out using conceptual tools such as, for example, gender (Ibidem – Torres Falcón). It is in the detailed analysis of the issue of equality where possible contradictions arise, since effective equality requires mechanisms that go deeper into the elimination of the structural causes that generate inequality, with measures that are positive in nature (positive discrimination). In this sense, in the international framework, this objective, that States implement such specific measures that protect individuals and foster the promotion of equality for vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, is included and promoted in the main international conventions16.

As previously stated in this introduction, dignity and equality (together with the idea of freedom, which we will not go into in depth here), underpin the Declaration, with the other main principles that permeate the text: the universality of its formulation (extension and scope of rights to all human beings), the interdependence and indivisibility of the rights set out in it (necessary and indispensable link between them and rejection of their possible fragmentation)17 and progressivity (which entails the implementation of measures to achieve full compliance, without retrogression).

The Declaration is not the first text to include the notions of human rights, nor to integrate the aspects mentioned above, although we can recognise its value as the first document to achieve a broad international consensus on human rights. This is even more the case if we take into account its subsequent development through successive conventions, protocols and covenants18 that broaden, deepen and consolidate the principles contained therein.

However, if we look into the past, we can find some of the historical antecedents that contributed to the advance of past societies in the recognition of human rights, and which, in a way, have served as a foundation for the contemporary formulation we see today. From the cylinder of Cyrus in 539 BC, which contained the first fundamental rights, such as the freedom of slaves and the right to free choice of religion or racial equality (López Castañeda, 2016)19; passing through the Greco-Latin and Christian conceptions of human rights, until reaching the 13th century with the Magna Carta of the Freedoms of England (1215) in which, for the first time in history, the freedom of the individual (in this case, only of the nobility) was protected against the arbitrary power of the king.

Centuries later, the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776), which states that “all men are created equal” and that they have “certain inalienable rights” provided by God, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) in revolutionary France, which states in its first article that men “are born and remain free and equal in rights” can also be observed. Both documents marked a break with the Ancien Régime, represented by the absolute power of the monarchs and the markedly feudal societies, giving rise to modern States and the first Constitutions20.

It would take almost another two hundred years and profound social, economic and technological transformations, the organisation of states and their borders, social mobilisation for access to rights (suffragism, the workers’ movement, etc.) and some of the most bloody and violent events in the history of humanity, before it could be universally declared that all human beings were subjects of rights. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that these struggles for access to rights took place in a wider context than that of Western countries, which, although generally overlooked, have their relevance and played an important role in the current conception of rights (Ghandi’s non-violence movement, the Mexican revolution, etc.)21.

At the European level, the genesis of the Council of Europe (1949)22, as an international entity with a regional character, was the first political effort on the European continent to articulate de facto the defence, protection and promotion of human rights (in particular civil and political rights), democracy and the rule of law23. A year later, in 1950, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)24, was drafted. Progressively, as economic, political and social integration expanded in the region, new states joined the organisation and ratified the Convention, from the initial 10 member states, to the current 4725.

This Convention allows for the legal codification of the principles and rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is biding for the states that join the organisation. Such is the level of commitment, that Title II of the Convention incorporates the creation of the European Court of Human Rights as an instrument for the prosecution of cases in which there have been possible violations of the rights set out in the Convention in any of the signatory States26.

Additionally, the countries that make up the European Union (EU) incorporated as a mandate the adherence to the ECHR in the Treaty on European Union, following the modifications introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in 200727, as well as the recognition of “the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000”28. Although the EU has its own legal institution to guarantee the uniform interpretation of the law in the member states, the Court of Justice of the European Union, it does not focus its action specifically on the protection of possible violations of human rights. However, a number of rulings have been derived from its actions, that cover the protection of certain human rights (García Espinar)29. It is true that from its inception to the present day, the European Union has committed itself, at least formally, to “support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law throughout the world” (European Commission 2020)30. This commitment has led to the creation of a Strategic Framework31 accompanied by three successive Action Plans32, which, among other aspects, has laid the foundations for the design and implementation of a sanctions regime33 that allows it to play a leading role in the promotion of human rights and the prosecution of human rights violations throughout the world34.

Throughout this historical journey, from the creation of the UDHR, through the materialisation of some of the joint European initiatives (Council of Europe and European Union), to the latest positions conveyed by the main European and pan-European institutions, human rights in Europe have represented the expression of a cultural and identity heritage, of a shared will35, and, although intermittently, they continue to be one of the most relevant issues for European States. So much so that the Union’s public agenda for the current five-year period (2019-2024) includes among its priorities the “promotion of our European way of life”36, explicitly mentioning the defence of the rights of migrants and highlighting the defence of fundamental rights as one of the identifiers of this way of life.

Despite the fact that human rights form part of the priorities of the European institutions, phenomena persist that undermine the enjoyment of these rights by citizens, or new threats emerge that shake the basic pillars of European societies. In this sense, social organisations that defend human rights have highlighted that37, during 2019, judicial independence has been undermined; the persecution of human rights activists has worsened; freedom of expression and assembly have been seriously threatened; the outsourcing of the management of asylum seekers and migrants to states that do not guarantee the protection of their fundamental rights has continued; and acts of intolerance, discrimination and violence towards those who are different continue to be of appalling virulence.

Regarding this latter aspect, hate crimes and discriminatory acts are a very present reality throughout the European Union38, despite the institutional safeguards and legal frameworks in place that establish guidelines for their prosecution39. In fact, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)40, in its latest compilation of data on hate crimes, states that for the 45 states for which data is available, the number of recorded incidents has increased by around 25%, from 5,735 in 201841 to 7,278 in 201942. Even bearing these figures in mind, one must not lose sight of the fact that, due to the particularities of these crimes, it is estimated that a high number of hate crime incidents are never reported43.

Hate crimes represent one of the most common expressions of attacks on fundamental rights, especially with regard to dignity, equality and non-discrimination and “constitute the expression of intolerance and rejection of people for the mere fact of being different”44. They differ from ordinary crimes, due to their impact on both the victim and the group with which he or she is identified45, as well as due to their social significance. For the victim, the primary impact is the result of the aggression itself, which can entail physical, emotional, psychological and material harm, with a differentiating character because it is caused by the rejection of the victim’s identity. Moreover, the group with which it is identified is also strongly impacted, in that this group also becomes the recipient of the message of rejection and discrimination with which the aggression associated. For society as a whole, this type of incident undermines the fundamental values on which contemporary democracies are based.

Thus, present day Europe is based on the firm foundations and construction of human rights, and their embodiment in the legal and administrative frameworks that make them effective. These alone are insufficient to eradicate the intolerant and violent manifestations that persist in our societies. It is therefore necessary, not only to strengthen institutional commitment or obligation, but also invest socially structures, in education and awareness-raising, which will allow these values to permeate, contribute to social cohesion and promote coexistence with one another46. Training that is not only aimed at the population, but also at professionals is also necessary, so that they can integrate a rights-based approach in their professional practice, so that it favours the promotion and protection of the rights of all, for all.

Europe’s historical and cultural heritage, the shared identity on which contemporary European democracies are based and on which human rights are founded, depends on this crucial social investment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACNUR Comité Español (2018). Derechos humanos: artículo 1, igualdad, libertad y dignidad.

Aguilar García, Miguel Ángel (2015). Manual práctico para la investigación y enjuiciamiento de delitos de odio y discriminación.

Amnistía Internacional (2019) Informe Europa y Asia central 2019.

Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (1948). La Declaración universal de Derechos Humanos.

Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (2016). Los principios de universalidad, interdependencia, indivisibilidad y progresividad de los derechos humanos.

Comisión Europea (2020) – Comunicado de prensa Sanciones y derechos humanos: hacia un marco europeo para combatir las violaciones y abusos contra los derechos humanos en todo el mundo.

Comisión Europea (2019). Seis prioridades de la Comisión Europea para 2019-2024.

Consejo de Europa (1949). Estatuto del Consejo de Europa.

Consejo de Europa (1950). Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2019) Informe sobre los Derechos Fundamentales 2019.

Fundación Juan Vives Suriá (2010). Derechos humanos: historia y conceptos básicos.

Fundación para la abogacía (2018). Delitos de odio. Guía práctica para la abogacía.

Habermas, Jurger (2010) The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights.

Institut de Drets Humans de Catalunya (2009). La Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos Emergentes (DUDHE)

Justo Megías Quirós, José (2005). Dignidad, universalidad y derechos humanos.

L. Paterson, Rupert Brown, & Mark A. Walters (2013). The short and longer term impacts of hate crimes experienced directly, indirectly and through the media.

López Castañeda, M. Carlos (2016). Derechos sexuales y reproductivos: un asunto de Derechos Humanos.

Marcos, J. (2018). Estos derechos humanos no son los de todas

Martínez Bullé-Goyri, Víctor M (2013). Reflexiones sobre la dignidad humana en la actualidad.

Ochoa-Ruiz, Natalia (2019). La dignidad humana como fundamento de la identidad europea: la labor del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en la delimitación de la noción de dignidad humana.

Oehling de los Reyes, Alberto (2015) La dignidad de la persona : evolución histórico filosófica, concepto, recepción constitucional y relación con los valores y derechos fundamentales.

Ra’ad Al Hussein, Zeid (2015). Prólogo a la edición ilustrada de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos.

Torres Falcón, Marta (2009). El concepto de igualdad y los derechos humanos. Un enfoque de género.

Unión Europea (2020). COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses.

Unión Europea (2012). Marco Estratégico de la UE sobre Derechos Humanos y Democracia (2012).

1 César Arroyo López. Doctoral student in the Humanities and Education Programme of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

2 Roberto Moreno López, Full Professor at the Universidad Internacional de la Rioja and Associate professor at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

3 Juan Antonio Flores Martos, Full Professor of Social Anthropology at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

4 PPreamble and article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. 1948. – https://www.un.org/es/universal-declaration-human-rights/

5 Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, illustrated version (DUDH), https://www.un.org/es/documents/udhr/UDHR_booklet_SP_web.pdf

6 The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights. Jurger Habermas.2010 – http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=s0185-24502010000100001&script=sci_arttext#notas

7 Martínez Bullé-Goyri, Víctor M. Reflexiones sobre la dignidad humana en la actualidad. 2013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041863313711219#sect0055

8 For more information in this regard, read the interesting article by J. Marcos: These human rights are not everyone’s (2018) https://www.pikaramagazine.com/2018/12/70-aniversario-derechos-humanos/

9 In this sense, the creators and promoters of the Universal Declaration of Emerging Human Rights have positioned themselves. (DUDHE), 2009. https://www.idhc.org/es/investigacion/publicaciones/derechos-humanos-emergentes/declaracion-universal-de-derechos-humanos-emergentes.php#:~:text=La%20Declaraci%C3%B3n%20Universal%20de%20los,humanos%20en%20el%20nuevo%20milenio.

10 Alberto Oehling de los Reyes – La dignidad de la persona : evolución histórico filosófica, concepto, recepción constitucional y relación con los valores y derechos fundamentales. 2015. Pag 369

https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/54520/1/5328086519.pdf

11 José Justo Megías Quirós. Dignidad, universalidad y derechos humanos. 2005 file:///C:/Users/Casa/Downloads/Dialnet-DignidadUniversalidadYDerechosHumanos-2220970.pdf

12 https://eacnur.org/blog/derechos-humanos-articulo-1-tc_alt45664n_o_pstn_o_pst/#:~:text=La%20dignidad%20humana%20es%20el,simple%20hecho%20de%20ser%20personas.

13 Citado por Jurgen Habermas en The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights. Jurger Habermas. 2010 – http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=s018524502010000100001&script=sci_arttext#notas

14 “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

15 Marta Torres Falcón. El concepto de igualdad y los derechos humanos. Un enfoque de género. 2009 – https://www.te.gob.mx/genero/media/pdf/25576d9646b18da.pdf

16 – International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) - Articles 1.4 and 2.2.

– Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) - Articles 3 and 4.

– Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) - Article 2.

– Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) - Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7.

17 “The enjoyment and exercise of one right is linked to the other rights being guaranteed; just as the violation of one right also puts the other rights at risk.” Los principios de universalidad, interdependencia, indivisibilidad y progresividad de los derechos humanos. Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos. 2016. https://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/cartillas/2015-2016/34-Principios-universalidad.pdf

18 The ten core human rights treaties and associated protocols drafted by the United Nations are available at https://www.ohchr.org/sp/professionalinterest/pages/coreinstruments.aspx

19 Manuel Carlos López Castañeda. Derechos sexuales y reproductivos: un asunto de Derechos Humanos. 2016. https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/11/5177/8.pdf

20 Derechos humanos: historia y conceptos básicos. 2010. Fundación Juan Vives Suriá. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Venezuela/fundavives/20170102055815/pdf_132.pdf

21 Ibidem

22 Council of Europe Statute (1949). http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/es/PoliticaExteriorCooperacion/ConsejoDeEuropa/Documents/Estatuto%20Consejo%20Europa.pdf

23 https://www.coe.int/web/portal/home

24 European Convention on Human Rights (1950). https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf

25 At present (2021) the signatories to the Convention are the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, together with Turkey. A complete list of Council of Europe member states is available at https://www.coe.int/es/web/about-us/our-member-states

26 Articles 19 to 51 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

27 Article 6(2) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. 2012. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT

28 Article 6(1) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. 2012. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT

29 https://www.derechoshumanos.net/tribunales/TribunalJusticiaUnionEuropea-TJUE.htm

30 European Commission - Press release Sanctions and human rights: towards a European framework to combat human rights violations and abuses around the world. Brussels, 19 October 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/ip_20_1939

31 EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy (2012). European Union. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11855-2012-INIT/es/pdf

32 EU Action Plans for Human Rights and Democracy (2012-2014, 2015-2019 y 2020-2024)

33 COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.LI.2020.410.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2020%3A410I%3ATOC

34 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024, pag.6 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10101/2020/EN/JOIN-2020-5-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF

35 Natalia Ochoa-Ruiz. La dignidad humana como fundamento de la identidad europea: la labor del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en la delimitación de la noción de dignidad humana. 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331403635_La_dignidad_humana_como_fundamento_de_la_identidad_europea_la_labor_del_Tribunal_Europeo_de_Derechos_Humanos_en_la_delimitacion_de_la_nocion_de_dignidad_humana

36 Six priorities of the European Commission for 2019-2024. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024_es

37 Europe and Central Asia Report 2019. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/es/countries/europe-and-central-asia/report-europe-and-central-asia/

38 Fundamental Rights Report 2019. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-fundamental-rights-report-2019_en.pdf

39 In particular those concerning anti-discrimination and equal treatment: Directive 2000/43/EC - Racial Equality Directive - and Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA - Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia.

40 ODHIR is the office within the OSCE focused on the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and tolerance and non-discrimination among member states and civil society organisations.

41 Data on the year 2018 extracted from https://hatecrime.osce.org/infocus/2018-hate-crime-data-now-available

42 Data on the year 2019 extracted from https://hatecrime.osce.org/infocus/2019-hate-crime-data-now-available

43 Manual práctico para la investigación y enjuiciamiento de delitos de odio y discriminación. Miguel Ángel Aguilar García. 2015. Pag 68. https://www.inclusion.gob.es/oberaxe/ficheros/documentos/manual_investigacion_delitos_odio.pdf

44 Ibidem pag.15

45 The short and longer term impacts of hate crimes experienced directly, indirectly and through the media Jenny L. Paterson, Rupert Brown, & Mark A. Walters. 2013. Pag.3

46 Delitos de odio. guía práctica para la abogacía. Pag 8. Fundación para la abogacía.

Evolution of hate crimes in Spain: Facts, victimisations, arrests, and investigations from 2014 to 2019

Patricia Fernández de Castro1

Natalia Hipólito Ruiz2

Eduardo Díaz Herráiz3

1. INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this work is to analyse the evolution of hate crimes in Spain, since there are data in Spain, though a quantitative analysis methodology based on data from crime statistics on hate crimes, published by the Home Office since 2014. Therefore, the analysis space in this article is located throughout the period from which official data exist, between 2014-2019.

The information available is analysed in three types of measures, on the one hand, the known and clarified facts, on the other hand, the victimisations and, finally, the arrested or investigated. All of them are specifically analysed, not only in their composition each year, but also, particularly, their evolution for the whole period 2014-2019, trying to find trends in the evolution, which it´s our main purpose. To this end, variables such as the typology and motivation of crime (areas), territorial distribution by Autonomous Communities, sex, age and nationality of both victimisations and offenders have been analysed.

The main source for the study of these data has been, as has been said, the crime statistics of the Home Office, which has data on hate crimes from 2014-2019. Until 2019, the available data did not distinguish between criminal offenses and administrative offenses, so that analysis has not been possible for the selected period. Likewise, the evolution in some crime areas has not been able to be analysed, since some categories have changed their definition and form of computation, such as discrimination against people with disabilities, or have been recently included and there are no data are available for the whole analysis period. Thus, for example, the area of antigypsyism was incorporated in 2018 and discrimination due to illness or generational discrimination were also incorporated in 2018, although later, so it is not possible to analyse their evolution.

Taking the definition of crime statistics, which is the one adopted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), hate crimes are understood to be:

Criminal offense, including those committed against people or property, where the protected legal asset is chosen for its connection, real or perceived, sympathy, affiliation, support or belonging to a group. A group is based on a common characteristic of its members, such as their race, real or perceived, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other similar factor. (Ministerio del Interior, 2020, p. 1)

However, we must consider that the study of hate crimes in Spain is a subject of recent analysis subject and that statistics have been also recently incorporated, so that’s why it is an incipient study phenomenon. With this we try to denote that, in addition to its possible undervaluation or underdiagnosis, as a recent European project has shown (Díaz Herráiz, et al., 2020), its figures depend on multiple factors and are not necessarily due exclusively to a growth in crimes, for example, but also to the greater awareness that citizens are gradually acquiring, to the complaint processes of the victims, therefore, it has been estimated that only 4.3% of the victims of discrimination present a complaint or raise awareness of the state security forces (Observatorio Español contra el Racismo y la Xenofobia, 2010), who have also been receiving training on hate crimes and have been developing protocols for action on hate crimes (Ministerio del Interior, 2013).

2. HATE CRIMES IN SPAIN: KNOWN AND CLARIFIED FACTS

This section discusses administrative and criminal offences for hate crimes in Spain, differentiating the data according to whether they are known facts or clarified facts. We understand known facts as those violations known to the Security Forces, either by a complaint filed or by police action carried out of their own accord. The facts are classified as clarified when the author has been arrested “red-handed”, when there is a full identification of the author (even if he is not in custody), when there is a verified confession and/or solid evidence or when the subsequent investigation reveals that there was no infraction.

The administrative and criminal hate crimes, known in Spain for hate crimes, in 2019 represent a total of 1706 incidents. Such infractions, which have been increasing steadily since 2016, have increased by 33% between 2014 and 2019, producing the highest year-on-year increase in 2017 and 2018 (12% and 13% respectively).

If we explore the evolution regarding the clarified facts, although the amount decreased in 2015 related to the previous year (from 843 to 687 events), since 2016 it had remained on the rise, in correspondence with the number of known facts. Otherwise, the percentage of clarification, which results from dividing the number of clarified facts by the number of known facts, was higher in that year (66%) than in 2019 (58%). However, this percentage ranges between increases and decreases in the years under analysis.

Figure 1. Percentage evolution of enlightenment (2014-2019)

2.1. Criminal offences

Throughout the period, criminal offences account for more than 90% of all the offences (criminal and administrative). The analysis of criminal offenses, exclusively, shows that the most common criminal typologies, regarding all the facts, are the crime of threats and that of injuries.

The evolution of both typologies was similar until 2017 (20.9% and 19.2% respectively), year from which there´s an inverse trend, injuries decreased and were one point below the previous year in 2018 (18.8%), although they increased in 2019 (20%), and threats indicated a rate of small continued growth in 2018 (21.7%) and 2019 (21.9%).

Figure 2. Major developments in criminal rates (2014-2019)

Very far from these two criminal typologies in terms of their weight over the total of criminal offences, the third most common typology it´s damages. In this case, the percentage of the total in 2014 was 3.3%, to increase to 7% the following year. Although it decreased in 2016 (6.5%), from this year to 2018 there´s an increase to 11.7% of the total criminal offences, to decreased again slightly in 2019 (11%).

In this case, the percentage with respect to the total in 2014 was 3.3%, that increased to 7% the next year. Although it decreased in 2016 (6.5%), from this year to 2018 there was an increase to reach the figure of 11.7% of all criminal offenses, to decrease slightly again in 2019 (11%). Although it decreased in 2016 (6.5%), from this year until 2018 there was an increase to reach the figure of 11.7% of all criminal offenses, to decrease slightly again in 2019 (11%).

The Autonomous Communities with the highest record of criminal and administrative offenses in the entire period analysed were Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, Basque Country, and the Valencian Community. Since 2015, the Community that accumulates the most incidence of known events was Catalonia, with Madrid in second place and Andalusia third since 2016. Although Andalusia was the territory that accumulated the most incidents in 2014 (297 events), the sharp drop in registered cases in 2015 (142 events) placed it that year in fourth place, remaining in third ones in subsequent years.

Specifically, in the last three years of this period, the incidence in Catalonia represents more than 30% of the national overall, while the Community of Madrid was around 14% and Andalusia about 10%. In this way, between 2017 and 2019, only the registration of infringements in these three Autonomous Communities was close to 60% of the total infringements in the national territory.

Table 1. Percentage of known facts by Autonomous Communities over the national total

The average percentage of the percentages of clarification of violations of the communities with the highest incidence compared to the set of years analysed ranges from 55% to 65% except in the Basque Country. In this case, the average between 2014 and 2019 is lower than the rest of these communities.

The average of the infractions clarified percentages of the communities with the highest incidence regarding to the period ranged between 55% and 65%, excluding the Basque Country. In this case, the average between 2014 and 2019 was lower than the rest of these communities.

Figure 3. Evolution of known events in the Autonomous Communities with the highest incidence (2014-2019)

The reason is that, although between 2017 and 2019 the percentage of clarification was even higher than the other communities (77%, 64% and 83% respectively), in the first three years it was very low. Thus, in 2014 the percentage of clarification was a 19% of total known facts, reducing to a significant 1% in the following two years. In this way, of the 201 and 141 facts known in 2015 and 2016, only 3 and 2 clarified facts are registered respectively for those same periods.

Figure 4. Evolution of clarified events in the Autonomous Communities with the highest incidence (2014-2019)

At the far end, the Autonomous Communities with the lowest incidence between 2014 and 2019 were the Autonomous City of Ceuta (in which case no known facts were even registered in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018), the Autonomous City of Melilla, Rioja and Cantabria. In no one of the period analysed the incidence of these communities did not exceed 3% of the national total.

2.2. Grounds for the commission of hate crimes

According to the crime statistics of the Home Office, hate crimes are classified according to the conditions and/or circumstances in which the criminal act takes place. Thus, hate crimes are those that happen within the following areas: racism/xenophobia, sexual orientation and gender identity, religious beliefs or practices, anti-Semitism, disability, aporophobia, ideology, gender discrimination. In addition, since 2018, discrimination based on illness, generational discrimination and, at the end of that year, antigypsyism were included as categories.

About the whole period from 2014 to 2019, the most common criminal and administrative offenses in Spain were those committed due to the victim’s sexual orientation and gender identity, racism and xenophobia and their ideology.

The most common typology in 2014 was sexual orientation and gender identity offenses, with a total of 513 known facts. This context changed between 2015 and 2017, with cases of racism and xenophobia being the reasons why more offences related to hate violence were committed in those years (505, 416 and 524 known facts respectively). Finally, the last two years of analysis, 2018 and 2019, the victim’s ideology was the reason why the most offences were committed (596 in 2018 and 615 in 2019).

Being the above data the most significant ones of known facts, there is no correspondence with respect to the most numerous clarified facts in the years 2018 and 2019, in which the highest number of infractions refer to those committed for reasons of sexual orientation and gender identity. The reason that the facts known and clarified, in these last two years, didn´t match may be due to the fact that the facts known for reasons of ideology had a much lower percentage of clarification in this period than the other reasons (about 40%), while almost all of the reasons ranged in percentages between 60% and 80%.

The evolution of criminal and administrative offences for each of the motives categorized as hate crimes is very uneven in each one. For the analysis, the areas of known facts have been distinguished, on the one hand, those areas in with a low or practically non-existent incidence (antigypsyism, anti-Semitism, aporophobia, generational discrimination and discrimination due to illness) and, on the other hand, the areas with a higher incidence during the analysed period (religious beliefs, against people with disabilities, due to ideology, sexual orientation and gender identity and racism and xenophobia).

Remain relatively constant between 2014 and 2019, in cases of anti-Semitism the evolution is negative, since in 2014 more than twice as many infringements were known as in the rest of the years.

In the first group, the offences related to antigypsyism, generational discrimination and due to the disease victim’s, didn’t collect any data until the end of the period, so it isn´t able to analyse in evolution in any of these areas. The registers of antigypsyism began in 2019. The other two areas were collected since 2018. In all cases the incidence was minimal. Moreover, while in the account of aporophobia the data on known facts, although with fluctuations each year, remained relatively constant between 2014 and 2019, in the area of anti-Semitism the evolution was negative, given that in 2014 more than twice as many offences were known than in the rest of the years.

Regarding the incidence of offenses for religious reasons, from 2014 to 2019 there was a percentage increase of 5% (from 63 to 66 registered events), but the data oscillated up and down during the period, being the most important rise, with a total of 103 known facts registered, in 2017.

About hate crimes against people with disabilities, there is a very significant difference between the first three years of analysis and the last three, which produced a sharp decline in the facts known as of 2017. Thus, between 2014 and 2016 there was an interannual increase of around 15%, which reached the figure of 262 cases in 2016. However, in 2017 that amount dropped to 23 known facts and in 2019 increased more than twice (59 facts), still far, however, from the numbers registered in the first three years of analysis. What was due to a change in the case accounting methodology.

Regarding crimes against sexual orientation and gender identity, although there´s a very high incidence in 2014 (513 known facts), fell by 67% in 2015 (169 cases). Since this year, except for 2018, which decreased slightly, the number of registered events increased unto 283 cases in 2019.

Although with differences, crimes due to racism and xenophobia, as well as the ideology of the victim, remained on an upward trend between 2014 and 2019, with the exception of 2016, in which there was a decrease of 16 % and 18% respectively in each of the types. Thus, in the last year, racism and xenophobia offences reached 564 cases. In the case of ideology, there were 615 known facts in 2019. However, it is significant that, in crimes based on the ideology of the victim, there weren´t registered facts in 2014.

The areas where there had a greater record of known facts were found in cases of racism and xenophobia, ideology, sexual orientation, and gender identity and hate crimes against people with disabilities. However, we find some differences between communities and with respect to the national total in the analysis of each of the years.

If we look at the reasons to those Autonomous Communities with the highest incidence in the national group (Andalusia, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Madrid and the Basque Country) in the period, according to the total national data, the areas in which there had been a higher incidence of known facts, were racism and xenophobia, ideology, sexual orientation and gender identity, and hate crimes against people with disabilities. However, we find some differences between communities and with respect to the national total in the analysis of each of the years.

The highest prevalence in Andalusia in 2014 and 2015 also coincided with the highest in the national territory for those years. Thus, in Andalusia, the area with the highest incidence in 2014 was due to the sexual orientation and gender identity of the victim, which represented 63.3% of all hate crimes in the autonomous community and the 36.6% of all crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the national context in 2014. In 2015, the highest record of known facts in this Community linked to the area of racism and xenophobia, which matched with the area with the highest incidence also at the national level. This time, the percentage was 33.2% of all infractions in the autonomous context. Moreover, hate crimes against people with disabilities accounted for 29.6%, very similar, therefore, to the main motive registered that year in Andalusia. Otherwise, being the cases of racism and xenophobia the highest registered area at the national level in 2015 was racism and xenophobia, where the incidence of Andalusia represented only 9.9% of this offence’s category in the national group. In 2016 in Andalusia the highest incidence was in the field of hate crimes against people with disabilities, which accounted for 38.2% of all offenses in the Autonomous Community that fall drastically more than 90% and 80% thereafter. Between 2017 and 2019, in Andalusia, the offences with the highest prevalence were those caused by racist and xenophobic reasons, which represented 47.4%, 28.5% and 35.3%, respectively, of the total crimes in the Community between 20-17-2019. Regarding the total number of hate crimes for racism and xenophobia at the national level, those recorded in Andalusia amounted to 12.2% in 2017, 8.9% in 2018 and 12.6% in 2019.

About Catalonia, the highest incidence registered between 2014 and 2016 corresponds to those motivated by racism and xenophobia. Concerning the total of infractions registered in that Community each year, in 2014, such infractions represented 57.9%. In 2015 it was 33.6%, with a significant impact in ideology facts (30%). In 2016 the percentage of infringements for racism and xenophobia in respect of total registrations in the Community was 39.4%. Between 2017 and 2019 the most significant records in Catalonia were obtained by those offences due to the ideology of the victim, that in 2017 reached 36.2% of all hate crimes in the Community, 58.3% in 2018 and 49.8% in 2019. At the same time, Catalonia coincides with the largest records of this same category of infringements in the national territory, assuming the impact of this Community on the total national hate crimes by the ideology of the victim 58.7% in 2018 and 41.6% in 2019. Catalonia was the community that had the greatest impact over this category at the national level, which accounted to 58.7% in 2018 and 41.6% in 2019 of all national offenses by ideology.

The area with the highest incidence in the Valencian Community in the period of analysis did not coincide with those with the highest prevalence at the national level, except in 2017 in crimes for racist and xenophobic reasons. In 2014, the area with the most known incidents in this Community was racism and xenophobia, which accounted to 34.5% of all crimes in the Community. Likewise, hate crimes against persons with disabilities that year amounted to 32.8% of the total annual registration in the Valencian Community. In 2015 and 2016, the highest incidence of infractions was collected towards people with disabilities, representing 35% and 39.4% respectively, of the total of infractions in the Community. In the last three years of analysis, offenses for racist and xenophobic reasons were the most prevalent in the Valencian Community, representing 45.5% of the total offenses in the Community in 2017, 38.4% in 2018 and 40.3% in 2019

The Community of Madrid and the Basque Country were in accord to have the highest incidence of infringements in racism and xenophobia in all the years under analysis.

In the case of the Community of Madrid, in 2014, such offences represented 44.1% of the total registered that year in the Community, 53.5% in 2015, 39.8% in 2016 and 38.9% in 2017. Finally, the registration in 2018 and 2019 were the 52.6% and 43.3% of the total annual registration in that territory. These two years, in addition, Madrid signified around 20% of the national total in the field of racism and xenophobia.

In the Basque Country for most of the period, the field of racism and xenophobia accounted for more than half of all hate crimes in the Community. The most significant data was given in 2014, when these offences amounted to 76.1% of all infractions in the Community and 18.7% of the national total in the category. It also highlights next year, 2015, with 64.2% of known facts in the Community and 25.5% of all offenses of racism and xenophobia in the national group. From 2016 to 2019, the percentage of this type of offences regarding to the total in the Community amounted to 44.7%, 50%, 49.6% and 52.4% respectively.

2.3. Places of infringement of known facts

The following lines carry out an analysis of the places where the infractions were perpetrated. According to the criminality statistics of the Home Office, the places of commission of the facts are classified into the following: housing (including the common areas), urban public roads and other roads (intercity, highways, roads, railway tracks...), hostelry establishments, leisure and others, open spaces (parks, campsites, rural land, beaches...), football fields or other sports facilities, religious centres and other facilities and enclosures not considered in the above typologies.

More than half of the hate crimes committed between 2014 and 2019 in Spain took place on roads or streets and in homes. Infringements in housing had a downward trend. There was a small interannual growth between 2017-2018 (5% and 7% respectively), but, for the whole period (2014-2019) the decrease was higher than 30%. In contrast, offences in roads had an increasing trend between 2014-2019, between those years the increase in roads was 75%.

Infractions in sports facilities, in religious centres and in open spaces did not exceed 10% of each of the categories in any of the years. In establishments, infractions were between 12% and 16% throughout the period, and therefore, there had been few variations in the period.

Finally, the category of other facilities displayed an increasing trend between 2014-2019, going from representing 9.9% of the total in the first year to 18.3% in the last.

Figure 5. Evolution of places of offences in Spain (2014-2019)

Since it can provide us an interesting perspective, the areas with the highest incidence of known facts are analysed in relation to the distribution of the places of infringement in the period between 2014 and 2019.

The offences committed around sexual orientation and gender identity occurred on roads or in homes even more than for all areas. Thus, only in these two places an average of around 70% is concentrated for the period of analysis.

In contrast to the set of areas, in which there was a downward trend in the year-on-year record of offences committed in homes and an upward trend in those committed on communication roads, in the case of orientation sexual and gender identity offences, the figures fluctuated between growth and decrease depending on the year. However, the growth in both cases between 2014 and 2019 was negative, being 15% in communication routes and 72% in homes.

Regarding crimes of racism and xenophobia, the proportion of infringements in homes and on the roads in all years remained like all areas data, around 50%. In this case, the percentage of infractions in establishments was higher than in infractions due to the sexual orientation and gender identity, offering an average of 17% compared to the set of years.

Racist and xenophobic offences committed on communication routes showed a clear rising trend throughout the period, except in 2016, when the figure fell about 17% than the previous year. The increase between 2014 and 2019 was 33%. On the other hand, infractions in establishments increased (21%) and decreased in homes (7%) between 2014-2019, but in both cases the figures are variable into the period, without being able to establish a trend unique in evolution.

The proportion of crimes for reasons of ideology was also similar to that of the total of areas for that period on the place in which were committed. Thus, crimes in homes and on roads were the majority and represented more than half of the rest of the places.

Regarding the evolution, from 2015 the communication routes were the most significant places (33.4% of the total). Even though the following year there was a decrease in the number of infractions in these places, in 2017 the figure increased by 82% over the previous year and maintained an upward trend until 2019. Ideology offences also decreased in 2016, reaching a decrease of 31%. However, a growth trend was sustained over the next two years. Although, in this case, the data in 2019 indicated a decrease in homes offences compared to the previous year. Otherwise, there´s an increase in offences by ideology in house and communication roads, between 2015 and 2019, that in the case of communication routes reached to 138% in 2019 compared to 2015.

3. VICTIMISATIONS

Victimisations are understood, according to the crime statistics of the Spanish Home Office, as a set of facts reported by the manifestations made by the victims of the facts denounced or harmed by some criminal offence. Therefore, victimisations refer to the number of facts reported by the victims and not to the number of victims, since, in the same complaint, there may be several facts (injuries and threats, for example) and there may be several victims.

Since there are official statistics on hate crimes in Spain, it can be observed that, in general in absolute values, victimisations for all reasons and from the set of facts have been growing. In 2014 there were 1,273 victimisations, in 2015 the victimisations were 1,166, slightly more in 2016, 1,257 victimisations, in 2017 amounted to 1,691, with a small decrease from 1,557 victimisations in 2018 and 1,684 victimisations in 2019. That is, except for the years 2015 and 2018 in which there was a decrease in victimisations compared to the previous year, the trend was to increase the number of hate crime victimisations each year.

Figure 6. Evolution of victimisations for hate crimes in Spain 2014-2019

The most significant increase occurred between 2016-2017 in which the number of victimisations increased by 34.8%. With that exception, year-on-year developments in the variation in the number of victimisations were around 8% between all years, but not all of them increasing. Between 2014-2015 there was a reduction in victimisations by 8.4%, between 2015-2016 amounted to 7.8%, in 2017-2018 fell by 7.9% and between 2018-2019 victimisations for hate crimes in Spain increased by 8.2%. In short, variations on total victimisations range from eight percent in different years.

The most important growth happened between 2016-2017, when the number of victimisations increased by 34.8%. With this exception, the interannual evolution in the variation in the number of victimisations was around 8% between all years, although not all an increase. Between 2014-2015 there was a reduction in victimisations by 8.4%, between 2015-2016 victimisations stood at 7.8%, in the period 2017-2018 were reduced by 7.9% and between 2018-2019 whole victimization by hate crimes increased 8.2% in Spain. In short, the variations on the total number of victimisations oscillate about eight percent in the different years.

3.1. Victimisations, territorial distribution

In line with the analysis of the facts, the territorial distribution of victimisations is mainly concentrated in five Autonomous Communities with reference to the number of victimisations by Autonomous Communities, in order of priority of the last year with data available (2019): Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, the Basque Country and the Valencian Community. Among them, the Autonomous Community that stands out most is Catalonia with 556 victimisations, then the Community of Madrid, with less than half of victimisations (247) than Catalonia, and at quite a distance in number of victimisations, Andalusia (178), the Basque Country (136) and the Valencian Community (125).

In line with the facts analysis, the territorial distribution of victimisations is mainly concentrated in five Autonomous Communities, taking as reference the number of victimisations by Autonomous Communities, in order of priority for the last year with available data (2019): Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, Basque Country and Valencian Community. Among them, the Autonomous Community that stands out the most was Catalonia with 556 victimisations, followed by the Community of Madrid, with less than half the number of victimisations (247) than Catalonia, and quite a distance in number of victimisations, Andalusia (178), Basque Country (136) and the Valencian Community.

The analysis of the percentage weight of victimisations by Autonomous Communities over the national total shows that almost three quarters of the victimisations arose in these five Autonomous Communities in 2019 (73.8%), although this weight fell from the previous two years, 81.9% in 2018 and 82.2% in 2017. In short, Catalonia especially and Madrid were the two Communities with the highest prevalence and weight over the total number of victimisations at the national level, which obviously is in relation to being two of the regions with the largest population.

Figure 7. Evolution of victims of crimes hatred by Autonomous Communities, as a percentage of the national total

These two Communities, in the evolution of the period (2014-2019), were together the ones that concentrated the most victimisations, 28.5% in 2014, 37.4% in 2015, 37.6% in 2016 and 61.3% in 2017, 54.6% in 2018 and 47.7% in 2019. However, the one that had the most weight by itself at any time during the evolution period was Catalonia, which stood at around 21-24% between 2014-2016 (20.6%, 24.2% and 24.9%, respectively), rose to 51.4% in 2017 and began a decline in 2018 (41.9%) that continued in 2019 (33%). Nevertheless, the evolution of Madrid was inverse with respect to the trend, since, although with fluctuations, it was rather upward: 7.9% in 2014, 13.2% in 2015, 12.7% in 2016, 9, 9 in 2017, 12.7% in 2018 and 14.7% in 2019.

3.2. Victimisations scopes

The analysis by area of victimisations, that is, by the reasons that lead to committing the act, offence or crime, on the total number of victimisations shows that many of the areas have a very low impact on the total number of victimisations. If we look at the percentage on the total in 2019 to antigypsyism and aporophobia each accounted for 0.4% over the total national victimisations, anti-Semitism 0.2%, by disability 0.9%, by belief 1.8% and by sex or gender 2.5%. While basically three reasons accumulated the remaining 93.7% in 2019. These were in order of weight: victimisations by sexual identity (53.6%), by ideology (20.3%) and xenophobia (19.8%).

The analysis by victimisation areas, that is, by the reasons that led to perpetrate the act, offense, or crime, on the total of victimisations shows that many of the areas had a very low incidence on the total of victimisations. If we pay attention at the percentage of the total in 2019, antigypsyism and aporophobia each accounted for 0.4% of the national total of victimisations, anti-Semitism 0.2%, disability 0.9%, beliefs 1.8% and by sex or gender 2.5%. While essentially three reasons accumulated in 2019 the remaining 93.7%. These according to weight were victimisations by sexual identity (53.6%), by ideology (20.3%) and xenophobia (19.8%).

Figure 8. Evolution of the main victimization areas.
As a percentage of the 2014-2019 National Total

If we review the evolution of the three areas with the greatest weight over the total of victimisations in 2019, the last year with available data, the first one was victimization for reasons of sexual identity, which presented a very heterogeneous evolution, decreased by 27.5 percentage points between 2014-2015, remained about 20-24% between 2016-2018 and increased in 2019 by 33.3% compared to the previous year. Moreover, victimisations for ideological reasons increased in 2017 (25.7%) and 2018 (37.9%) and, however, their weight on the national total decreased in 2019 (20.3%) with respect to the year previous by 17.6%. Meanwhile, the third of the victimisations by weight over the national total was xenophobia, which remained at around 34% between 2014-2016, rose to 38% in 2017, falling from that year to 30% in 2018 and 19.8% in 2019.

3.2.1. Areas of main victimisations and territorial distribution

Regarding the distribution and evolution by Autonomous Communities in the main areas of victimization, the evolution by Autonomous Communities of the three areas with the greatest weight over the total in the last year of data is analysed.

Figure 9. Victimisations by sexual identity by Autonomous Communities, in percentages on the national total

The community with the highest weight of victimisations by sexual identity in practically all the years of analysis was Catalonia, which presented an irregular evolution. In 2017 accounted for 53% of victimisations in this area, fell to 33% in 2018 and rose again to almost 42% in 2019. In this area of victimisations, the second largest community was the Basque Country, which was practically every year, with the exception of 2019, above Madrid, which showed an increasing evolution between 2014-2016, decreased in 2017 to grow almost six percent in 2018 and to reduce, again, the weight almost by 7% in 2019.

Figure 10. Victimisations by ideology by Autonomous Communities, in percentages on the national total

With regard to ideological victimisations, the five communities with the highest percentages of the national total for the last year with available data were Catalonia (39.3%), Madrid (9.5%), Galicia (8.1%), Andalusia (7.5%) and Valencia (6.6%). Therefore, Catalonia is undoubtedly the one with the highest percentage of victimisations at a great distance from the rest of the communities (around 30%). But, in addition, Catalonia´s evolution since 2014 was of constant increases until reaching practically 66% of the victimisations due to ideology in Spain in 2018, to decrease by 32% in 2019 with respect to the previous year. With regard to the evolution of the other communities, the evolution of Galicia with respect to victimisations for reasons of ideology is striking, since it started in 2015 from 5.4% and decreased to 0.7% in 2018, but, grew again to 8.1% in 2019, when Galicia became the third community with the most victimisations due to ideology in Spain, after Catalonia and Madrid. While, Madrid was around 9% in 2016-2017, decreased to 6.7% in 2018, but, again, was above 9% (9.5%) in 2019.

Figure 11. Victimisations of racism and xenophobia by Autonomous Communities, in percentages on the national total

In xenophobia victimisations and the weight by Autonomous Communities, we also find Catalonia as the first Community in all the years of analysis 2014-2019. Catalonia fluctuated in the period between 20-30%, except for 2017, when the community represented the 50% of victimisations of this type. Secondly, Madrid, which ranged in evolution between 10-20% of the xenophobia’s area. In third place, the Basque Country, which ranged between 12-23% in the period. 2017 (23.3%) was the highest year and went down to 12% in 2019. Andalusia fluctuated between 6-10%, obtaining the greatest weight in 2019, where it was the community with the highest weight of all the Communities in victimisations by xenophobia in Spain.

3.3. Sex victimisations

The sex of the victimisations was mostly male and, only in the first year for which data are available, was the number of women greater than men. In absolute values, from 2015 to 2017 there was some sustained growth of victimisations in both sexes, which decreased somewhat in 2018, increased again in 2019, although less in the case of women.

Figure 12. Total national victimisations by sex, in number of victimisations

However, if we analyse the weight that each sex had on the total of victimisations each year, in relative values, that is, the percentage of each sex on the total of victimisations showed a fairly regular trend, since, from 2016-2019. The percentage of men over total victimisations per year ranged between 63-64% and 35-37% among women in the period.

Figure 13. Victimisations by sex 2014-2019, national total in percentage of total victimisations

In short, since 2015 the percentage of victimisations has been above 60% in men and women, since 2016 below 37%. Thus, the small trend seen in the evolution between the sexes is that the number of men is slightly increasing, and the percentage of women is also somewhat reduced.

Briefly, since 2015 the percentage of victimisations was above 60% in men. In women, since 2016, below 37%. Thus, the small trend that can be seen in the evolution between the sexes was that the number of men grew slightly, and the percentage of women also fell somewhat.

3.3.1. Victimisations by sex and territorial distribution

Given that Madrid and Catalonia were the Communities with the greatest weight in the victimisations of all the Communities, it is also analysed whether the trend by sex in these communities was the same as at the national level.

Figure 14. Comparison by sex of the number of victimisations in Catalonia and Madrid

In absolute values, Catalonia had many more victimisations than Madrid. Catalonia grew in an identical trend between men and women until the highest prevalence of victimisations in an autonomous community, in both men and women, in 2017, after which a similar decline occurred in both sexes. However, in Madrid the trend was to gradually increase each year from 2015, in a more or less similar way each year.

But, if we analyse the weight of each sex on the total of victimisations by Autonomous Communities each year, we find that in Madrid the percentage of men was much higher than of women in all years, less in 2018, especially in 2016 and 2017 than there were 46.3% and 42.5% more men than women. This difference stabilized at 24 percentage points from 2017 between both sexes.

However, this difference in weight between men and women drew ups and downs in Catalonia, which started in 2014 with 46.6% more men than women in victimisations. In 2015 that difference fell to 27% more men than women, the difference grew to almost 35% in 2016 and from 2017 it was above 27%, with ups and downs. In short, the difference between the victimisations between the sexes was overwhelmingly male, in Madrid the weight of men was greater than in Catalonia almost every year of the period.

3.4. Victimisations by age group

The analysis of victimisations by age groups in the crime statistics is addressed in seven groups: Minors, 18-25 years, 26-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-65, over 65 years and of unknown age.

Figure 15. Percentage of victimisations over national total by age group 2014-2019

The analysis by age groups reveals that the age groups that contributed the most victimisations to the total were those aged 26-40 years, in the first place, and those of 41-50 years in the second. The unknown-age group was very insignificant and this group weight over the total in the whole period was around 1%. The group over 65 years of age fluctuated between 3-4% in the period. The weight of the minor’s group was in gradual decrease since 2014 (25.6%), 2015 (13.8%) and 2016 (10.2%) and in both 2019 and 2018 contributed around 6,7% to the total of victimisations. Therefore, the minors showed a very steep decline.

Conversely, the age groups that showed the most weight over the total of victimisations each year offered, although with ups and downs, a more or less stable trend, since the 26-40 age group was the one with the greatest weight, which was around 30%, fluctuating between 29-33% in the period. The next group with the highest percentage of victimisations in percentage weight over the total of victimisations was 41-50 years old, which ranged between 19-21% in the period, with the exception of 2014 (16.7%) and the last two years of the period that took the same weight (21.3%). The 51-65 years old group was close to the previous age group in weight of total victimisations (between 14-18%) and seemed to start an upward trend since 2017 (12.9%), to 18% in 2018 and 17% in 2019.

3.4.1. Victimisations by age groups in Autonomous Communities with higher incidence

If we analyse the weight of the two age groups with the highest prevalence over the total of victimisations in the two Autonomous Communities with the highest prevalence of victimisations, we can verify that the trend is similar to the national total, that is, they are also the same age groups with the highest incidence.

Figure 16. Percentage of victimisations by older age groups with the highest weight in Madrid and Catalonia

However, the age group between 41-50 years had a greater weight over the total in Madrid than in Catalonia, although in both cases with significant fluctuations in their weights between years in the period. However, despite the differences, it can be said that the weight of this group in both communities was similar, since in Madrid fluctuated between 23.7%-39.1% and in Catalonia between 22.7%-36.3%.

3.4.2. Victimisations by age groups and more significant areas

The age groups of highest victimisations are analysed by the most prevalent areas of victimisation in the national total.

In the area of sexual orientation and gender identity, until 2017, the group aged 26-40 was ranked first, also with sustained growth between 2014-2017 (23.3%, 29.5%, 32.4 %, 36%, 37.2%) which fell to 30.2% in 2019 and was surpassed this year by the 18-25 age group (37.5%). Until 2018, this 18-25 years-old group was the second with the highest weight, also with sustained growth, but in 2019 this group became the first weight group for the sexual orientation and gender area.

In the area of ideology, in 2017 the group with the greatest weight was the 26-40 years (25.1%), but it gradually decreased to 20% in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, the 51-65 years group, which in 2017 presented its lowest weight (17.9%), rose to 27.5% in 2019 and became the age group with the greatest weight in this area of victimization. The group of 41-50 years was the second one that was growing until reached 25.9% in 2019.

In the area of racism and xenophobia, the groups with the greatest weight were, in the first place, those aged 26-40 years in a sustained way throughout the period, fluctuating between 26% (2017) and 41.8% (2014), placing the last year of the period (2019) in almost 40% (39.9%) of victimisations for this area. The group of 41-50 years was the second most important age group, a position that the group held continuously throughout the period, fluctuating between 18-23%, this 23% was precisely the percentage of this age group in 2018 and 2019 in this area of victimization.

3.5. Victimisations by nationality

The analysis of victimisations by nationality showed, as expected, that throughout the analysis period the Spanish population exceeded 70% (except in 2017, 69%) of the victimisations every year. So, there was a certain stability around that figure, although there was an oscillation between 69% in 2017 and 74.6% in 2018, which fell again in 2019 to 72.3%.

The second group that showed some representation in the weight of nationalities on the total of victimisations was the Moroccan nationality. In this case, a general trend of the weight around 8% can be observed, but with greater fluctuations than in the case of Spanish nationality. Thus, the Moroccan nationality fluctuated between 7.6% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2017. Since that year, 2017, a certain decrease was observed by 7.2% in 2018 and 7.8% in 2019.

Figure 17. Victimisations by nationality, total areas, as a percentage of the total 2014-2019

The rest of the nationalities presented a practically insignificant weight on the total of national victimisations and only some exceed one percent. If we look at these nationalities in 2019 over the total number of victimisations the weight were of: Venezuela (1.9%), whose trend was growth, Senegal (1.4%) whose trend was down until 2018, Romania and Colombia (both with 1.2%) and Bolivia and the Dominican Republic (both with 1%).

3.5.1. Victimisations by nationality in the most significant Autonomous Communities

The analysis of the distribution of nationalities in the victimisations of the main Autonomous Communities with the highest victimisations, Catalonia, and Madrid, both pointed towards, although with fluctuations, around an average of 70% of the Spanish population. Catalonia showed a more upward trend, almost continuously throughout the period, and reached the highest weight on the Spanish population in 2018 (83.5%). Year in which Madrid also reached the maximum weight on the Spanish population (73.6%) of the analysis period.

Figure 18. Percentage of Spanish and Moroccan nationality on victimisations in Catalonia and Madrid 2014-2019

3.5.2. Victimisations by nationality and main areas of victimization

The weight of the two main nationalities on the areas with the highest incidence of victimization is also analysed, which are due to ideology, sexual identity and racism or xenophobia.

In ideology victimisations, practically the total population was Spanish, ranging between 97-100% in the analysis period. Moroccan nationality did not even reach one percent in several years of the analysis period.

Similarly, the majority nationality in the case of gender identity victimisations was Spanish, standing in all years of the period above 80% (80.1%-87.5%), displaying a sustained downward trend mild until 2018 (80.1%), to rise one percentage point in 2019 (82.2%).

Victims due to racism or xenophobia also presented a majority Spanish nationality, as might be expected, with oscillations between 38.2% and 45.9%. Therefore, in this area the weight of the Spanish population was substantially reduced, although with increasing trend between 2014-2017 and a slight decrease in 2018 (41.5%) and 2019 (38.2%). Regarding the weight of the Moroccan population in this area of victimisation, a homogeneous trend cannot be discerned, but, throughout the period of analysis, the weight of the Moroccan population was above 15.6%, oscillating between this and 23.1% in 2017, to decrease to 15.6% in 2018 and rise slightly in 2019 (16.2%).

4. ARRESTS/INVESTIGATIONS

The Statistical System of Crime computes the categories of people investigated and arrested to refer to the perpetrators of hate crimes in the different areas. Investigated is understood as those natural or legal persons who are attributed the participation in a criminal act, but, for which no restrictive measures of freedom are adopted, while the detention implies the attribution of a criminal offense, depriving of freedom and bringing detainees to justice.

4.1. Arrests/investigations. General and sex

The arrests/investigations in Spain for hate crimes, since crime data is available, exceeded 500 cases for every year, although in 2017 there was a greater increase with 1101 arrests/investigations, in 2018 there was a considerable decrease (546 arrests/investigations) compared to the previous year, but in 2019 the number of arrests/investigations increased again (590).

The arrests/investigations, in absolute values, every year were higher in men than in women. In the case of men, in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 there was a decrease compared to 2014 and the years with the most investigations were 2017 (868) and 2019 (490). The arrests/investigations of women for hate crimes in Spain showed an increasing evolution since 2014, every year more cases were registered than before, apart from 2018. In 2019, 15 more women than in 2018 were investigated.

Figure 19. Evolution of hate crime arrests in Spain.
Total and sex distinction, 2014-2019

If we differentiate the arrests/investigations, in relative values by sex, 2014 was the year in which the highest number of men arrested/investigated was registered in the entire period with 93%, in contrast, the year with the lowest percentage of men arrested/investigated was 2017 (78.8%). On the other hand, in the years 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019 the percentage remained between 83-87.7%, and in 2019 (83.1%) decreased compared to 2018 (84.4%).

In the case of women arrested/investigated, the percentage increased from 7% (2014) to 16.9% (2019), the largest increase happened in 2017 (21.25%) and although this decreased in 2018, the latest data recorded in 2019 increased an 1.3% compared to the previous year and an 9.9% compared to the first year with available data (2014).

Figure 20. Evolution of arrests/ investigations by sex in percentages over the national total, 2014-2019

The Autonomous Communities in which the highest number of arrests/investigations, in absolute terms, occurred between 2014-2019 were Andalusia, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Madrid and Basque Country, with a notable difference in the arrests that occurred in Catalonia in 2017, but, with an uneven evolution in every community.

Both Andalusia and the Valencian Community reduced prevalence during the period. Andalusia went from 119 investigations in 2014 to 60 in 2019 and the Valencian Community from 66 to 57, respectively. For the rest of the communities the evolution was increasing. The Basque country moved from 18 to 116 investigations, Madrid from 26 to 90 and Catalonia from 50 to 103, between 2014-2019.

In the historical series of data, as a percentage of the national total, the arrested/investigated of these 5 Autonomous Communities accounted for more than 50% of the total in all years of the analysis period. In 2017, 88.9% of the total investigations in Spain took place in these 5 communities. With oscillations between Communities, the Basque Country accumulated the highest percentage of investigations in several years: 2016 (17.7%), 2018 (22.2%) and 2019 (19.7%). Andalusia accumulated 23.2% in 2014, the Valencian Community 16.2% in 2015 and Catalonia 56.8% in 2017. In 2018, arrests/investigations increased in all communities, except in Catalonia which decreased by 44.5%, however, in 2019 there was an increase in arrests/investigations in Catalonia and Madrid, not so in Andalusia, the Valencian Community and the Basque Country.

Figure 21. Evolution of arrests/research by Autonomous Communities in percentages, 2014-2019

If we analyse the data by areas of hate crimes, racism/xenophobia was the one with the highest incidence of arrests/investigations throughout the period, except for 2014. The evolution of this area of victimisations in the period was increasing until 2017 (37.6%), when it reached the highest level, and began to decrease in 2018 (35.5%) and 2019, that decreased 2.6% compared to the previous year. Sexual orientation and gender identity was the area with the most arrests/investigations in 2014 (53.3%), with a strong decreased in 2015 of more than 13%, after this year the evolution was unequal and in 2019 (23.2%) there was an increase of four points with respect to 2018 (19.2%).

Detentions/investigations related to ideology, along with racism/xenophobia and sexual orientation and gender identity were the most prevalent throughout the period. The scope of ideology went from 0% registered in 2014 to 21.1% in 2015, decreased in 2016 (17.9%), but, since this year, this area had a constant increase up to 27.8% of investigations in 2019.

The weight of the disability area on arrests/investigations fluctuated in the period. In the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, these percentages were between 21 and 25.3%, while, after 2016, the percentage fell to 4.7% with a decreasing evolution until 2019 (2.5%).

Figure 22. Evolution of arrests/investigations by area in percentage, 2014-2019

The incidence of arrests/investigations in other areas was relatively low compared to the three that present the highest incidence, in 2019 those related to gender reasons accounted for 6.1% of all arrests/investigations, while those motivated by religious beliefs or practices represented 3.7%.

If we analyse the data by sex, the only year in which there were differences in arrests/investigations was 2016, in which men perpetrated more crimes in the areas of racism, disability and ideology and women in racism, disability and sexual orientation and gender identity. For the rest of the years, no differences by sex were observed.

4.2. Arrests/investigations by age groups

Regarding the arrests/investigations by areas and age, the age groups between 18-25 and 26-40 years stood out in incidence, these two age groups interspersed the highest percentages in the different years.

The 18-25 years old group was the one with the largest investigations in 2015 (28.4%) and 2018 (33.0%), this group decreased between 2018-2019 by 7.1 percentage points. The 26-40 years group had more arrests/investigations than the national total in 2014 (36.9%), 2016 (27.5%), 2017 (29%) and 2019 (28.8%), with an increase of 1.5% over 2018.

The next age group with the most arrests/investigations was 41-50 years, in this group the fluctuations per year were discrete, with 2015 (13,1%) being the year in which the lowest percentage accumulated over the national total. In 2019 this group amounted to 15.6% of arrests/ investigations.

Figure 23. Evolution of arrests/investigations by age group in percentages, 2014-2019

By contrast, people over 65 years of age were the least arrested/investigated for hate crimes in Spain, with percentages ranging between 2.3% in 2017 and 5.2% in 2016, exceeding only this percentage in 2015, with 8.2% of the national total. For minors, the evolution of the percentage of arrests/investigations went from 10.0% in 2014 to 14.1% in 2019.

As noted, the most prevalent age groups in arrests/investigations were 18-25 and 26-40 years. Focusing on the 18-25 years group recorded the highest arrests/investigations, especially in area of ideology, that sustained a constant increase from the first data (2014) to 2017 with 38.5% of the total areas, in 2018 there was a decrease to 31.1%, and in 2019 the group registered the highest incidence (40.5%) since 2014 in ideology area.

In the area of racism/xenophobia, this age group (18-25 years) also had the highest incidence, especially in 2014 (30.5%) and 2015 (37.9%), when exceeded those investigated/arrested for ideology. In 2016 (25.5%) this age group fell sharply compared to 2015. The evolution of the group also showed a decrease of 3.5% between 2018 (28.3%) and 2019 (24.8%).

Figure 24. Evolution of arrests/research by areas and age groups
(18-25 years) in percentages, 2014-2019

If we focus the analysis on what concerns sexual orientation and gender identity, the evolution was very uneven. This area reflected the highest incidence in 2014 (37.1%), was the fourth in 2016 (10.6%) and was in almost 25% of the arrests/investigations in 2019, when practically had the same weigh than ideology area. Otherwise, it should be noted that the number of people arrested/investigated for hate crimes against persons with disabilities fell from 23.8% in 2014 to 0.7% in 2019. There was also a significant increase in gender discrimination, as 0.7% of arrests/investigations in 2017 increased to 16.1% in 2018 and decrease significantly again in 2019 (5.2%).

Concerning the age group between 26-40 years, the area of racism/xenophobia remained with the highest incidence from 2015 to 2019, in 2017 (42.6%) achieved the highest prevalence in evolution, decreased in 2018 (36.9%) and increased again by over 1% in 2019, when represented 38.2% of this age group out of all areas.

Figure 25. Evolution of arrests/research by scope and age (26 to 40 years) in percentages, 2014-2019

4.3. Arrests/investigations by Nationality

If we analyse the data by nationality on all areas related to hate crimes in Spain, Spaniards were the nationality with the highest percentage of arrests/investigations, followed by Moroccans at a high percentage distance throughout the period.

The variability in the percentage of arrests/investigations of Spaniards since 2014 was not very pronounced, although it can be noted that since 2017 (78.9%), there was a decrease, compared to 2015 (80%) and 2016 (83.2%), subsequently it rose to 80% in 2018 and 84.7% in 2019.

The evolution of arrests/investigations of Moroccan people increased from 2014 (3.5%) to 2017 (7.6%). From that year on, the percentage of arrests/investigations in Morocco began to decline. In 2018 the weigh stood at 5.1% of all arrests nationwide and at 4.1% in 2019.

Figure 26. Evolution of arrests/investigations by country of origin by percentage, 2014-2019

Romania, Colombia, and Ecuador were the next three countries with the most arrests/investigations after Spain and Morocco, but with a small incidence. None of the three exceeded 2.8% of the national total and decreased since 2014. In 2019, arrests/investigations for hate crimes of people from Romania accounted for 1.4% of the total number (8 arrests/investigations), Colombia 1% (6 arrests/investigations) and Ecuador 0.7% (6 arrests/investigations).

When the data are analysed by area and nationality of the arrests/investigations, and taking into account that Spaniards and Moroccans were the most arrested/investigated, in the case of Spaniards it should be noted that racism/xenophobia was the most prevalent area over the total for the years 2016 (30.7%), 2017 (37.5%), 2018 (36.8%) and 2019 (31.8%), therefore, the data reflected a decreasing evolution from 2017 to 2019 for this area.

If we look at the arrests/investigations of Spaniards in the field of ideology, throughout the whole period the incidence was higher than 20%, reaching 31% in 2019, 4.9 points higher than the previous year.

Figure 27. Evolution of Spanish arrests/ investigations and scope, 2014-2019

Hate crimes against people with disabilities committed by Spaniards were the most prevalent for the years 2014 (22.2%) and 2015 (27.5%), decreasing steadily and sharply until 2019 (2.4%).

Regarding Moroccan people who were arrested/investigated, the areas with highest incidence were racism/xenophobia, sexual orientation and gender identity and religious beliefs or practices, unevenly from 2014 to 2019. The racism/xenophobia area predominated in 2015 (29.6%), 2016 (37.9%) and 2017 (50%) and decreased in 2018 and 2019 (20.8%). The arrests/investigations of Moroccans about sexual orientation and gender identity decreased between 2014 (55.6%) and 2019 (41.7%), with uneven variations throughout the period.

Figure 28. Evolution of Moroccan arrests/investigations and scope, 2014-2019

Religious beliefs or practices was another of the areas that stood out for its incidence in the arrests/investigations of Moroccans, 22.2% in 2015 and 27.4% in 2017, but as of this year there was a considerable decrease of a 7.1% in 2018 and 8.3% in 2019.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Known and clarified facts

Since 2016, the number of known facts in Spain regarding hate crimes has been constantly increasing. Although the number of clarified facts has increased since 2015, it does so to a lesser extent than the known facts. The average percentage of clarification in the group of years analysed, resulting from dividing the facts clarified and those known, reached 59%. Throughout the entire period, criminal offenses account for more than 90% of all offences (criminal and administrative). The most common criminal typologies with respect to all the facts were the crimes of threats and injuries.

The Autonomous Communities with the highest record of criminal and administrative offenses in the period were Catalonia, the Community of Madrid, Andalusia, the Basque Country, and the Valencian Community, led by Catalonia from 2015 to 2019. In these communities, despite the fact that the percentage of clarification was between 55 and 65%, the Basque Country had a very low percentage of clarification in the first three years, while the next three years surpassed the percentage of clarification of the rest of the Autonomous Communities.

In terms of areas, it has been shown that the most common criminal and administrative offenses in Spain corresponded to those committed due to the victim’s sexual orientation and gender identity (the highest in 2014), racism and xenophobia (the highest between 2015 and 2017) and ideology (the highest 2018-2019). The evolution of all the areas with the highest incidence was, in general, an upward trend.

The highest incidence of offences by ideology in the last two years in the national total was mainly due to the increase in Catalonia in this area, as it was the only one of the five Autonomous Communities that registered the highest incidence in this area. The other four Communities had the area of racism as the one with the highest incidence in 2018 and 2019. On the other hand, precisely in the last two years there wasn´t correspondence between clarified and known facts according to the reasons, because, as noted, the clarification crimes percentage by ideology was significantly lower than that of the other reasons.

Regarding the places where the offences were committed, more than half of the hate crimes committed between 2014-2019 in Spain took place on roads and in homes. Although, the infractions in communication roads had a growth trend, while, in housing, in general, decreased throughout the period.

5.2. Evolution of victimisations and victim’s profile

Except for 2015 and 2018, victimisations showed a growth trend throughout the period (2014-2019), which stood at around 8%, both in the years of increase and those of decrease. The most important increase was between 2016-2017, when the number of victimisations increased by 34.8%. Five Autonomous Communities accumulated almost three-quarters of the victimisations in 2019 (73.8%), despite the fact that this weight decreased compared to the two previous years (81.9% in 2018 and 82.2% in 2017): Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, the Basque Country and the Valencian Community.

Catalonia accumulated the highest percentage of victimisations of all the Autonomous Communities throughout the period and presented an average of approximately 28% of victimisations for the period. Madrid, with an upward trend throughout the period, was the second Autonomous Community with the highest weight of victimisations, over an average of 11.8% in the period. Thus, these two communities together since 2016 accounted for more than 50% of all victimisations (except for 2019, 47.7%), which is obviously related to the fact that they are two of the regions with the largest population.

In the trend of the analysis period (2014-2019), even with different fluctuations, the three areas with the greatest weight over the total of victimisations were the areas of racism or xenophobia (31.8% on average in the period), the most important reason stable until 2018 when a significant decline began; for reasons of sexual identity (30.1% on average in the period), which was increasing until 2019 amounting to more than thirty percent; and for ideological reasons (24.1% on average in the period) with a sustained growth trend until 2018, but that decreased by more than seventeen percent in 2019. Catalonia was the community that kept a greater weight in these three areas of victimization, much higher than the community with the second highest weight in any of the three areas of victimization.

In the 2016-2019 period, 63-64% of the victimisations happened in men and between 35-37% in women out of the total victimisations of each year, presenting a fairly homogeneous trend and of small growth in the percentage of men and a small reduction in the number of women in a sustained manner throughout the period. In the Autonomous Communities with the highest victimization, the difference in victimization between the sexes was also overwhelmingly male, although in Madrid the weight of men was greater than in Catalonia almost every year of the analysis period.

By age, the group with the highest prevalence over the total was that of 26-40 years, which presented an average of weight in victimisations over the total years of the period of 30.7%, with a stable trend around the thirty percent every year. The next age group with the highest weight in victimisations (19.8% average for the period) was 41-50 years old. This trend remained similar in the Autonomous Communities with the highest victimisations, the order of age groups was the same as at the national level.

By areas of victimization, in the area of sexual orientation and gender identity the group aged 26-40 years remained the highest weight (average of 31%), although in 2019, this trend changed and the group aged 18-25, that had been the second in weight with constant growth, it became the first (37.5%) in this area of victimisations.

In the area of racism and xenophobia, the national trend was maintained, since the groups with the greatest weight were those aged 26-40 years, in a sustained manner throughout the period (37% average), and those aged 41-50 years, continuously, it was the second highest weight (21% average) during the entire analysis period for this area of victimisations.

In the field of ideology, however, the groups with more weight changed the national trend, since the 26-40 years group gradually reduced the incidence, while the 51-65 years group rose to become the ones with greater weight in this area of victimisations, which also happened with the group of 41-50 years whose upward trend made the second group in this area in the last year of analysis.

Regarding the nationality of the victimisations in the national total, the trend was quite stable, they were Spanish (70% average) in seven out of ten cases. The second group, although with a downward trend since 2017, was Moroccan nationality (8% average). In the Autonomous Communities with the highest victimisations, this trend was equal, since both Madrid and Catalonia maintained an average of Spanish victims around 70%, although Catalonia presented a trend of increasing the Spanish victims greater than Madrid.

In the main areas of victimization, the Spanish population was also predominant in victimizations by ideology, where the weight increased even more (97%), and by gender identity, where the Spanish population was above 80% all years of analysis. However, in victimizations due to racism or xenophobia, the common nationality was Spanish, but the weight dropped considerably in this area (41% on average) in which Moroccan nationality was above 15.6% in all years of the period in this area.

In summary, we can conclude that the main profile of victims of hate crimes in Spain is that of men (63%), adults between 26-40 years (30.7%) or between 41-50 years (19.8%), of Spanish nationality (70%), live in Catalonia (28%) or the Community of Madrid (12%), have been victimized for reasons of racism or xenophobia (31.8%), for reasons of sexual identity (30.1%) or for ideological reasons (24.1%).

5.3. Arrests/investigations

The evolution of the number of people arrested or investigated for hate crimes in Spain has been uneven since the crime statistics record data, the arrests/investigations ranged between 512 (2014) and 590 (2019) cases every year except for the year 2017 (1101). What remained constant was the weight of men arrested/investigated compared to women, men accounted for between 78.8 and 93% of the total in the 2014-2019 period. A similar upward trend in arrests/investigations was maintained in both men and women for the years 2018 and 2019.

As with the number of criminal and administrative offences and victimizations, arrests/investigations concentrated the highest incidence in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Madrid, and Basque Country. These five communities represent more than 50% of the total in every year.

When the data by areas are analysed, the racism/xenophobia was the area that motivated the most arrests/investigations from 2014 to 2019, followed by those related to sexual orientation or gender identity and ideology. On the other hand, the data registered in arrests/investigations for reasons of hatred towards people with disabilities are noteworthy, which from 2014 to 2016 stood at around 21-25% and decreased considerably from 2017 to 2.5% in 2019, which is explained by a change in methodology and computation in this area (not all but only infractions due to hate reasons in this group were counted since 2017).

The ages that accumulated the most arrests/investigations were the groups between 18-25 and 26-40 years. While the groups with the highest victimizations were concentrated between 26-40 and 41-50 years. There was coincidence that racism/xenophobia and ideology were the areas that showed the most arrests/investigations both in the ages between 18-25 and 26-40 years, especially between 2018-2019.

What the data give us, in terms of the nationality of the detained/investigated people, is that the highest percentages (79.1%-84.7%) of the period were accumulated by Spaniards with a very significant difference with the rest of nationalities. The second largest nationality was Moroccan, which did not exceed 7.6% of the total number of nationalities throughout the period.

Related to the areas in which Spanish and Moroccans were most arrested/investigated, these were the areas of racism/xenophobia and sexual orientation and gender identity. There were differences in terms of ideology, which was the area in which Spaniards were more arrested/investigated (31% in 2019), while Moroccans did not show incidence in this area and did in that of religious beliefs or practices (8.3% in 2019).

In conclusion, on the majority profile of the aggressors (arrested/investigated), it was configured as men (86%), mostly of Spanish nationality (81%) and aged between 18-25 (29.2%) and 26-40 years old (26.6%). The most were arrested/investigated in the Autonomous Communities of Catalonia (19.2%), Basque Country (14.5%) and Andalusia (13.6%) for hate crimes related to racism or xenophobia (30.3%), sexual orientation and gender identity (25.4%) and ideology (19.3%).

6. LIMITATIONS

We must consider that the study of hate crimes is new and that the collection of statistical information in Spain is also recent. In our country, until 2013, when the first report on the evolution of hate crimes was published, there were no hate crime statistics, but currently crime statistics systematically collect sufficient and detailed information thereof.

However, the newness, the complexity of the phenomenon and the multiple factors that affect it make the study and analysis of hate crimes evolution complex, since, in the first place, the magnitude of the phenomenon could be much greater than the data indicate by multiple reasons.

For example, it has been shown that victims tend not to report crimes and that the percentage of victims who say they have reported situations is very low, reaching a “majority 94.3%” who did not report (Observatorio Español contra el Racismo y la Xenofobia, 2010). In this way, the awareness of the victims about the fear of reprisals or the importance of reporting, but also the awareness of the general population about the need to report hate crimes are factors that affect the approach to the real magnitude of the crime phenomenon.

Likewise, the sensitivity and awareness of professionals, for example, health workers in the ex officio report of the events and especially the role of the state security forces are significant factors in measuring the real prevalence of the phenomenon. For this reason, the security forces and bodies have already carried out actions to implement protocols for action and training activities for the state security forces (Ministerio del Interior, 2013) that will result in a better record, sensitivity with victims and complaints of hate violence situations.

Specifically, the evolution of hate crimes, which has been the object of this analysis, becomes complex to explain the differences in the number of crimes or their weight between the different years, since the multiplicity of factors that affect prevent finding a simple explanation. The awareness of the victims, the citizens or the professionals of the different public services influence the complaints that exist, but also issues, values, structural and conjunctural social conditions influence the perpetration of this type of crime and it becomes complex determine which may have had the greatest influence in each year of analysis by studying their evolution.

Likewise, one of the limitations of this study is that the data have been taken in absolute values (number of incidents, victimizations, investigated or arrested) as shown in the crime statistics of the Home Office or in percentages over the national total, by areas, etc., but its weight has not been weighted, for example, in the analysis by Autonomous Communities based on their population, therefore, the prevalence, magnitude or weight of the phenomenon in those Autonomous Communities with the largest population could be overvalued and undervalued in the one with the smallest population.

7. REFERENCES

Díaz Herráiz, E., Flores Martos, J. A., Árias Fernández, E., Arroyo López, C., Fernández de Castro, P., Hipólito Ruiz, N., . . . Pulido Fuentes, M. (2020). Support and advice through health system for hate crimes victims. Spanish Nacional Report. Llere. https://stophatedamages.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Spanish-National-Report-DEF-11.01.21.pdf

Ministerio del Interior. (2013). Informe sobre delitos de odio en España 2013 [Hate Crimes in Spain, 2013]. Ministerio del Interior.

Ministerio del Interior. (2020). Informe Delitos de Odio. Metodología estadística[Hate Crimes in Spain. Statistic Methodology]. Ministerio del Interior. https://estadisticasdecriminalidad.ses.mir.es/publico/portalestadistico/dam/jcr:18874c57-cacc-4965-8ec6-f71e5e3551ac/04_Metodolog-a_Delitos_de_odio.pdf

Observatorio Español contra el Racismo y la Xenofobia. (2010). Panel sobre discriminación por origen racial o étnico: la percepción de las posibles víctimas [Panel on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin: the perception of potential victims]. Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social.

1 Patricia Fernández de Castro. University of Castilla-La Mancha. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8551-8906

2 Natalia Hipólito Ruiz. University of Castilla-La Mancha. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-9201

3 Eduardo Díaz Herráiz. University of Castilla-La Mancha. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8641-7349

Hate Crime and Health Institutions: the Case of the Republic of Cyprus

Fabienne Baider1

Andreas Chatzittofis2

1. INTRODUCTION

Health institutions provide support to hate crime victims in ways that do not differ from the emotional support, practical assistance and advice that health professionals offer to people and groups who have reported, accessed or been referred to them. However, as hate crimes also involve the legal system, reporting to the police and giving specific care are some of the specificities that need to be addressed when working on hate crime and health institutions. Our research carried out in the Republic of Cyprus (herein referred to as the RoC) points to a lack of knowledge on the part of health professionals and, therefore, to a void in best practices as far as the handling of such victims is concerned. This is the case for the simple reason that the notion of a hate crime victim is not known, nor it is used in those institutions. This is one of the many findings resulting from our research and training conducted in the Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the EU Social Justice SHELTER project (2018-2020). In this chapter, we focus on the knowledge, attitudes and practices that frame the relationships between hate crime victims and health practitioners, as they were revealed in the interviews and the feedback we obtained from the health professionals during training and network meetings.

Our chapter is anchored in the Critical Discourse framework or CDA (Fairclough 2003), which aims to clarify relationships of power sustained and resisted by and through social and language practices. Fairclough’s framework recommends situating all discourse analysis within context. This contextualisation anchors any interpretation of data and helps to uncover the values underlying attitudes that, in turn, lead to specific social practices. This chapter is therefore divided as follows. First, we give a brief summary of the Cypriot legal (including law enforcement) and medical contexts, since both underlie the macro-context of our study. Our second section focuses on the qualitative findings and the micro-context. We give special attention to the main areas that require improvement-- as these were apparent from the questionnaires and the interviews with health professionals. Our last section focuses on the institutional roles and attitudes of the police and social workers as they are perceived by health professionals; these were the most frequently addressed topics brought up in the interviews. The concluding remarks aim to offer some insight into ways to move forward. Our very detailed discourse analyses in the second and third sections are framed by our quantitative analysis and the feedback received during our training and network meetings.

2. LEGAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTs OF THE RELATIONSHIP between HEALTH CRIMEs and HEALTH INSTITUTIONs

The broader macro-context, i.e., the legal and medical institutional framework, is our focus here, since these two areas are crucial in recognising the rights and the existence of hate crime victims. Major improvements to be implemented at all institutional levels is the key finding of this section.

2.1. Legal context and hate crime in the RoC

As far as the legal context of hate crime in the RoC is concerned, the legal framework was first formulated in 2011 and subsequently amended in 2017 with the law called The Fight Against Certain Forms and Events of Racism and Xenophobia through the Criminal Law Act 2011 (134 (I) / 2011). It is worth noting, however, that this law was not created to address hate crimes since there is no definition of hate crimes in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Cyprus. This law condemns any hostile behavior (other than discrimination) towards another person on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and-- since 2015-- gender, sexual orientation and gender identity if, and this is an important legal clause, it disturbs public order.

However, it is difficult to assess how such laws are applied since few investigations in the RoC include hate crime statistics. The Cyprus Police Department is the main body responsible for recording and collecting hate crime data, in collaboration with the Anti-Discrimination Office, because the victim must first report the incident at a Police Station and complete a form designed for hate crimes. Therefore, the police are responsible for investigating the matter, and it is they who decide whether the issue is a hate crime.3 Given this pivotal role of the police, it is important to raise the awareness of police officers about the existence of hate crime as a specific category of crime, as well as to train them on registering such incidents—neither of which is currently at a satisfactory level (KISA 2017).4 Indeed, even though new police recruits as well as cadets are required to attend a special training program on xenophobia and racism, it would be useful to make such a program compulsory for all officers as well as to require regular and comprehensive training on hate crime in order to consolidate awareness and modify practices (FRA 2018).5

This is particularly important since statistics on hate crime are difficult to ascertain in the RoC. The only data that have been collected date back to 2018 and totalled only 205 cases of crime (Cyprus Statistical Data 2019).6 The most frequent motivation seems to be nationality and is most often directed against Asians. For example, female migrant workers (Gender Equality Research Center 2009), the majority of whom are from the Philippines or Sri Lanka, are regular victims of abusive and very racist behavior, sexual harassment, assault and/or exploitation. However, since regular national reports on hate crime do not exist, this abusive behavior and the committed crimes remain unknown as official data. Indeed, even though requests from the EU and other sources such as earlier FRA reports have underlined the need to improve reporting in general on racist and sexist crimes, and even though ODIHR has recommended that the RoC report cases of hate crimes separately from cases of discrimination, reports are still lacking. Another example in that regard is that while there is no official data available for 2019 it is well known that public hate crimes against the LGBT community occurred and that the police failed to record such cases as hate crime.7 Therefore the 205 cases quoted previously is a number well below the reality. Moreover, and since the role of the police is crucial in the relationship of hate crime and the health institutions, training of the police seems a matter of urgency.

2.2. Health care context and hate crime in the RoC

The fact that the police play a pivotal role is problematic given that they are sometimes perceived as part of the problem. Yet, they are also part of the solution, since health staff are expected to report to them. Lack of reporting to the police on the part of health staff is indeed a major issue since 94% of health professionals declared not knowing precisely what constitutes a hate crime: if hospital staff were aware of hate crime, reporting and care would also improve. Training, for example, would result in awareness and good practices; such training should be part of the Republic’s brand-new National Health System (or NHS) which started in June 2019. The island’s NHS aims to provide universal coverage8 with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. Indeed, in 2015 the Euro Health consumer index ranked Cyprus’s health care 26th of 35 European countries, and required the RoC to establish a national health care system. Since 2020, all citizens who are permanent residents in the Republic, as well as refugees, are beneficiaries of state inpatient and outpatient healthcare. Since guidance on providing effective casework support to hate crime victims is limited, the new health system could work on a guide offering information, advice and a framework to develop good practices. Our team in the Cypriot SHELTER project is working towards that aim.

The next section details what was learnt during our research, with a focus on questionnaires and interviews with the health staff. We then discuss how this information can help us to achieve this aim.

3. RESEARCHING THE KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES AND BELIEFS OF THE HEALTH PRACTITIONERS

Our starting point will be the individual interviews that we conducted on line during the year 2020 as part of the project. We will then compare these answers with the results from our quantitative survey.

As a general remark, and unsurprisingly, the interview data corroborated our findings related to the low level of knowledge regarding hate crime; on the other hand, the disparity among professionals in terms of their knowledge and professional practices is also of interest.

3.1. Questionnaires survey

For the UCy team, 42 participants responded to our survey following the SHELTER guidelines and methodology (in this volume), with 55% being nurses, 40 % doctors, one driver and one receptionist. Primary care and emergency units were almost equally represented. Gender (including sexual orientation, gender identity and gender) was the variable that was seen to be most likely to lead to hate crime. This was closely followed by ethnic origin. The RoC is an overwhelmingly Christian island, with the Orthodox church a strong active political and social agent (Karayianni 2016), and the Republic has been described as conservative in its beliefs and attitudes towards sexuality. The Othering would, therefore, logically target first those perceived as disturbing the social order, and especially the sexual order (i.e., the heterosexual and the heteronormative order) (Baider 2018). Othering is also powerful in targeting any person upsetting the ethnic homogeneity; hence, ethnic origin was revealed as the second most frequent parameter among potential hate crime victims. Homogeneity is indeed an important issue for a society—like the RoC--that is in conflict.9

3.2. Interviewing the health professionals

During the subsequent ten interviews, which followed the semi-structured format prescribed by the common project methodology, our interviewers were encouraged to discuss some of the results obtained from the survey. The interviews with members of the health staff took place online because of the COVID pandemic. These exchanges were extremely useful to gain a deeper understanding of the results obtained through the questionnaires in the previous stage of the research. All in all, we conducted 8 interviews with health staff (6 doctors and 2 nurses) and 2 interviews with hate crime victims. All interviews ranged from 15 minutes to 45 minutes; most were recorded (with the consent of the interviewee) in order to facilitate further analysis.10 One trained clinical psychologist and one psychiatrist conducted the interviews.

Overall, a broad consensus was perceived amongst our interviewees that the situation as it exists is inadequate. One step to be taken, and which would improve things rather quickly, is the organisation of training; such training would solve the lack of knowledge, and hopefully the lack of good practices as far as hate crime victims are concerned. This is a conclusion that was also evident in the questionnaire analysis, since 90% of the participants in our 42 questionnaires declared having no knowledge of hate crimes. And most of our interviewees declared themselves willing to engage with education on the topic: 6 out of 8 health staff agreed to be informed of the training we were going to conduct. Among the 2 who were not interested in the training, one person still acknowledged the need for it: ‘we should be better informed about these types of forms of violence, so that we are in a position to ask the right questions to identify it in our profession’.

The second most common recommendation arising from the interviews is the need for a psychologist to be on the premises at all times in order to give support to the victims. Indeed, when individuals fall victim to hate crimes, they are more likely to experience a range of negative emotions, which differ dramatically from those of random victims of crime since their very identity is at stake (Iganksi 2015). Nurses and doctors who took part in the interviews declared themselves unable to give that specialised care and support, which is so badly needed in such circumstances.

During this training, health professionals expected to be taught about hate crime as well as to be informed of the appropriate protocol to follow in dealing with such crimes. This leads to our third most-cited recommendation, which was to establish a protocol. Health professionals may be called on to assist the victim in the courtroom and to serve as a witness. Therefore, a protocol appears to be fundamental in protecting the hate crime victims’ rights. As one interviewee explained, this could be:

a set of operational guidelines should be set in place, a practical guide to deal with issues like this, if they were set in place, it would also help the health care professionals to be aware of the issue.

As a matter of fact, some protocols already exist: for example, for sexual assault of underage people. Such a guide would give the information as well as the steps to follow in order to fulfil their multifaceted role (court assistance, referral, medical advice, etc.) as health professionals.

4. RELATIONSHIPS OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

There were two social agents who came up frequently in the health staff discourse and framed our discussions during network meetings and our training: police and social workers. Both are the focus of this next section.

4.1. Relationship with the social workers

Obviously, even if training is organised, knowledge is acquired and best practices are followed, little can be achieved without good relationships between the health institutions and the most important social agents (cited above). Indeed, as one doctor insisted, there should be ‘perfect cooperation’ between all the services involved in the process of helping the hate crime victim. The role of social workers was prominent in the testimonies of health staff who helped hate crime victims. One doctor noted that even though one victim ‘did not totally consent to such referral, in the process, they did give full consent’. Social workers themselves were quite aware of hate crimes, and were knowledgeable of certain protocols that should be followed. As one social worker stated:

As soon as we find a victim, we consider it our duty to call the competent authorities, whether it is the police or a welfare office, so that they can offer the help that the victim needs.

4.2. Relationships with the police

The word police is the most frequent word in our interview data after the generic terms such as people and persons. This result confirms the sine qua non condition of a good relationship with that social agent, which is not always the case. And as a matter of fact, the police, as mentioned before, stand at the forefront of the process; to have their full cooperation is unavoidable and imperative. Hence there is also the need to have a trained police officer at all times in the hospital, which has been requested in some testimonies.

As far as the cooperation with the police is concerned, opinions and experience differed dramatically among the health professionals. In one interview, a medical officer and general practitioner had witnessed the helpfulness of the police in starting the whole chain of events, i.e., the referral to social workers who gave practical support (temporary accommodation to the victim) as well as emotional comfort (psychological advice, counselling etc.): ‘from then on the police started a chain of aid,’ as the person mentioned. Another interviewee who worked at the emergency unit also rated the cooperation with the police as ‘excellent’: ‘When I was working in the emergency unit I encountered such incidents, we had an excellent cooperation with the police’. However, just as many interviewees held the opposite opinion. One interviewee did not want to be too blunt and only mentioned that: ‘from the stories that I heard, not from my personal experiences, you know, the police won’t be so collaborative’. Situations become even more complicated when the perpetrator is the police themselves, then to whom do you turn to as a health professional? The answer to that question should be part of the protocol.

As far as the victims are concerned, both interviewees declared that the relationship with the police was not satisfactory. One hate crime victim denounced the patronizing attitude of the police –the person was a gender-based victim– which did little to help the person. The NGO which was approached was the most efficient on the level of administration, i.e., in recommending the steps to be taken to build a case against the perpetrator, a case which was later won by the victim. However, neither the protection needed, nor the necessary psychological support were given; the victim had to pay for consulting with a psychologist in order to overcome the fear, guilt and shame that were felt after the event. From those victims’ interviews, it became clear that they did not know their rights and that a code of police practice must be put in place. Many victims, as we were informed also by doctors, do not want to proceed with a complaint because of fear and lack of protection from the perpetrator and the lack of protection from the police.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In order to summarize briefly this chapter on the relationships of health institutions and hate crimes, we will conclude with the words of a hate crime victim. The person pleaded for an overhaul of the health system with a focus on more supportive care, especially on the legal, psychological and judicial (i.e., here protection from the perpetrator) levels:

I believe that there should be a central authority that would coordinate all the services, in which [there would be] social workers, and police people and generally [people] from all the relevant authorities; they should have a reference person like a focal point that can coordinate things.

This centralisation of services to help hate crime victims could be part of requests made by the European Commission to the different EU countries, along with the obligation to have a strict protocol to be followed.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baider, F. (2018). ‘Go to hell you fagots, may you die.’ Framing the LGBTQ subject in online comments, Lodz Paper in Pragmatics 14 (1): 69–92.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.

London: Routledge.

Iganski, P. and Lagou, S. (2015) ‘Hate crimes hurt some more than others: implications for the just sentencing of offenders’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10): 1696–1718.

Karayianni, S. S. (2016). ‘Through the narrow straits: Researching homophobia and sexual oppression in Cyprus’. In C. N. Phellas (ed.), Researching Non-Heterosexual Sexualities, 187–200. London/New York: Routledge. Ebook.

1 Fabienne Baider, Full Professor of Linguistics at the University of Cyprus. This chapter is based solely on data provided by the UCY team.

2 Andreas Chatzittofis, Lecturer of Psychiatry at the University of Cyprus, registered psychiatrist.

3 There is a specific box for the category of motivation: “racism/discrimination” etc.

4 https://kisa.org.cy/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/together-cy-en.pdf

5 https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/fundamental-rights-report-2018

6 Anti-Discrimination Bureau, the Anti-Racism Division and the Police Headquarters. See as well https://hatecrime.osce.org/cyprus

7 https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/ilga-annual-review-2020-two-incidents-of-violence-in-cyprus-based-on-sexual-orientation/.

8 Known as GeSY (Greek: Γενικό Σύστημα Υγείας – ΓεΣΥ, Healthcare System, GHS) https://www.gesy.org.cy/sites/Sites?d=Desktop&locale=en_US&lookuphost=/en-us/&lookuppage=hioghsprinciples). The Republic had no choice since the establishment of an operational NHS was mandatory as part of the bailout program the RoC signed with the Troika of international lenders in the same year.

9 It is important to recall the division of the island, the northern part being occupied since 1974.

10 All recordings are strictly confidential and, in accordance with the bioethics committee recommendations, are held at UCY for the 5-year checking period before being destroyed.

From racism to hate. Plural citizenship from the intercultural model

Rosa Marí Ytarte1

Roberto Moreno López2

César Arroyo López3

1. INTRODUCTION

The Western societies of today are characterised by their diversity. In fact, it can be said that all societies throughout the ages have been distinguished by their plurality and heterogeneity. However, in the current context, and within the framework of world globalisation processes, interculturality has become one of the issues of greatest social interest, as it questions the cohesion and co-integration of different walks of life in the same territory or community. From this reality, and from the problems related to the socio-cultural changes that have manifested in our societies in recent decades, arises what we now call intercultural education. Therefore, one of the objectives of interculturality is to establish the theoretical and methodological principles. On the basis of these principles, processes of mediation must be configured, taking into account the demands of an ever-changing world and particular subjects whose culture and identity must not be excluded.

On this premise, the mediating function of intercultural education to which we will refer in the following pages is based on a socialising and integrating dimension of education. That is to say, the perspective we take as a reference for the development of interculturality is centred on the idea that one of the most important objectives of education today is to enable the transition towards spaces of “life in common” and social participation regardless of the cultural origin and identity of each individual. Moreover, we believe that any intercultural educational process is characterised precisely by its capacity to link the collective with the particular; the social in a broad sense, with the individual universes of identity and culture that integrate and shape today’s world in all its dimensions. For this reason, the meaning taken from notions such as culture, identity and difference constitute one of the theoretical axes from which to reflect on the development of interculturality in today’s educational contexts. These concepts are intended to deal with issues such as:

– Cultural diversity and interculture. That is to say, the processes of intercultural communication and interaction, and the mechanisms required to develop educational actions capable of conveying shared projects between diverse individuals and groups.

– Particularity confronting universal referents such as human rights, equality and democracy.

– The processes of homogenisation-globalisation and migration.

Intercultural education (IE) has been connected to these concepts and has generally been thought of as an educational response to the phenomena of contemporary social diversification. IE promotes reflection on the validity and appropriateness of the cultural elements that until recently have been at the core of the relationship between culture and society, examining new forms of participation and social cohesion in today’s world. Thus, the most important question we are trying to answer is what should the principles be, which from the educational perspective, can convey the belonging of individuals to their closest world: to the city and the neighbourhood, to the institutions and the public sphere, and, in short, to others, similar and different, who live together in the same space. On the basis of this general description, developing an intercultural perspective of education means being part of a double dialectic that brings into play several interrelated elements, which will be explored in the following section.

1.1. The complexity of today’s societies

Nowadays, identity and society constitute a complicated network of relationships, loyalties, inclusions and exclusions that are connected on the basis of factors related to the processes of globalisation and the identities that these generate. In addition to culture, these processes incorporate other elements such as new modes of consumerism, work and communication. This dimension of complexity is one of the key factors in understanding that interculturality is not a unilateral project of integration of diversity into a seemingly homogeneous society, nor is it the development of an education system that “helps” those who are supposedly “different” to incorporate themselves into a reality that is far from what they know, nor even a programme that facilitates the understanding of these differences and their acceptance by “equals”. On the contrary, IE is configured as an educational project capable of linking all those individuals to common principles, to shared rules of the game, based on the multiplicity of their identities. This dimension of mediation is then the effort to make room for diversity and at the same time to enable the participation of all in the normalised spaces of society, attending to the ever-difficult search for that common minimum necessary for the development of a committed coexistence.

1.2. The interrelationship between society and culture

The diversification of social spaces forces us to face change, conflict and a multiplicity of life choices that are not limited to culture. In other words, interculturality raises questions about individuality and identity in the educational context, beyond a pedagogical orientation exclusively focused on instrumental learning and professional achievement. An intercultural perspective also implies thinking pedagogically about culture and identity from parameters that include a strong commitment to citizenship and social participation. This idea means establishing collaborative networks between educational institutions and the immediate context, i.e. the city and the municipality. These links give a new dimension to the role of municipalities, as a place where identity, diversity, and the complexities of the process of belonging occur.

1.3. The commitment to universally valid references that can be developed from multiple socio-cultural options.

A pedagogy that calls itself intercultural can only start from the principle of universality. Reflection on the ways of expressing cultural identity in today’s societies is in reality a reflection on what is common, on the social anchors necessary for coexistence. Interculturality, as a pedagogical analysis, needs to bear in mind the general principles on the basis of which to demonstrate the complexity and uncertainty of the processes of cultural identification and fragmentation in today’s societies.

The principle of universality to which we refer is somewhat different. It means that diversity can only be manifested on the basis of common principles, freely accepted and assumed, which guide the multitude of choices for individuals and collective groups that share territorial space. It also means viewing education as the sphere where these principles are taught, learned and articulated. The universality of education is precisely, because of its privileged place, to account for this possibility to accommodate and facilitate the expression of individuality (cultural, identity and other) and its place in society. For this reason, such universality is not concluded, , but a starting point, characterised by a willingness to be constantly negotiated and redefined.

A universality that takes human rights as its point of reference, does not mean ignoring the analysis stemming from the conflicts in Western societies, nor their effects on the global level. In other words, it means breaking away from the tendency to analyse others from a cultural perspective, which can demonise some of their conflicts and practices, and presents Western countries as neutral with regard to these issues. On the contrary, this reference to universality requires the establishment of a pedagogy capable of accounting for the universal substratum of all societies, rejecting a linear and evolutionary vision of development. This means showing that the way in which human groups build and shape their societies is based on exchange, imitation and borrowing, and ultimately assuming that all these processes are multidirectional in nature.

2. FROM RACISM TO HATE

2.1. Regarding prejudice

“Prejudice is an axiomatic predisposition to accept or reject people on the basis of their real or imagined social characteristics” (Light, Keller and Calhoun, 1991). It can also be defined as “a hostile and distrustful attitude towards some person who belongs to a group, simply because of his or her membership in that group” (Allport, 1954). In this sense, prejudice is a learned attitude, based on the experiences that a person has had throughout his or her life and especially during childhood. Prejudices are shaped on the basis of stereotypes. In the end, a prejudice is a distorted way of interpreting reality, since, even though it may have a basis in reality, it contains erroneous, exaggerated information or accidental generalisations caused by previous or an unusual experience. Prejudice is not just a statement of opinion or belief, but an attitude that includes feelings such as contempt, disgust or outright repudiation.

Discrimination, on the other hand, is the behavioural component of prejudice, and therefore its outward manifestation (reviewed in Simpson and Yinger, 1965). Social scientists have traditionally conceptualised discrimination as the unequal unfavourable treatment of a subject or group, as a consequence of prejudice. Discrimination can occur in many different ways, in different settings and at different levels.

2.2. Some types of discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a person is, has been or would be treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation on one of the protected grounds (related to the person’s identity). Examples:

– Denying entry into a shop, restaurant or other premises to a person because of the colour of their skin, without a valid reason.

– An advertisement for renting a house or a job offer in which immigrants are excluded, “no foreigners” is declared, or Spanish nationality is required in order to receive a benefit.

– An identity check or search by a police officer in which people are selected solely on the basis of their physical appearance, cultural, racial or ethnic characteristics.

Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision, or practice causes or is likely to put one or more person at a particular disadvantage compared to others due to some discriminatory ground; unless that provision or practice can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim or valid reason.

– When a group of persons (e.g. a group of people of another nationality ) is required to meet a certain requirement (e.g. documentation to be obtained in their country of origin) for access to a particular social benefit that is difficult for that group to meet, thereby placing that group at a disadvantage compared to others (the majority) for access to that benefit.

– When a certain requirement (e.g. an academic qualification, a language, etc.) is required for access to a benefit that is not actually necessary for the job in question, in order to make it more difficult for certain groups to access the benefit.

Discrimination by association occurs when a person or group is discriminated against on the basis of their relationship or contacts with one or more other persons who are discriminated against. Examples include:

– Assaulting an activist because he is a member of an NGO that defends the integration and rights of African immigrants, while he himself is a national and white-skinned.

– Denying a benefit to a person because they are married to a person belonging to a particular ethnic group or minority.

Erroneous discrimination is discrimination based on an assumption or mistaken assessment of the person discriminated against by associating him or her with certain characteristics.

Examples include:

– A person is refused entry to an entertainment venue because they think they are Roma, but they are not.

– Two boys leaving a restaurant kiss each other on the cheeks and are attacked by a group of skinheads who think they are homosexuals, yet they were family members.

– A person is attacked by shouts of “go back to your country, we don’t want foreigners here”, because of his cultural or physical features, because it is assumed that he is of foreign origin, even though he was born in that country.

2.3. Hate violence

Hate violence constitutes a violation of fundamental rights and dignity, undermining the principle of equality and reducing individuals to the stereotypes that are assigned to them, on the basis of their collective membership of a particular group, racial characteristics or sexual identity, among other traits. From this perspective, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has referred to hate crimes as:

Any criminal offence, including those committed against persons or property, where the protected legal good is chosen because of its real or perceived connection, sympathy, affiliation, support or membership of a group. This group is based on a common characteristic of its members, such as their actual or perceived “race”, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other similar factor.

A hate crime is not, therefore, a crime of sentiment (Ibarra, 2015), but constitutes an objectifiable action or discourse, even if it contains subjective ideological or prejudiced elements with defined features (Díaz, 2018; López, 2017):

– They are based on prejudices towards people or groups based on their real or assumed characteristics.

– They reduce people to some of the traits or stereotypes from which rejection of them is constructed.

– The victim is always chosen on the basis of the group to which he or she belongs and those characteristics of the group that cannot be modified.

– It is an aggressive behaviour or hostile discourse that incites violence.

– It always represents a threat to the collective and divides communities.

Hate crime and hate speech have their conceptual and legislative origin in the Anglo-Saxon context: hate speech, hate crime or bias crime. As Díaz (2018, p.5) indicates, the concept is defined as a: “desire for evil, originating in a prejudice or bias against a certain class of people and, where appropriate, against the specific person who shares the characteristics that generate this desire”. It is, therefore, a crime with the objective of the humiliation or denigration of the victim and the group he or she represents and, for this reason, those groups or groups that have been historically and socially discriminated against are considered to be victims of hate violence.

The concept of hate crimes is currently defined as, in a general sense, all those crimes that have a prejudicial or discriminatory basis in their execution. In this regard, both the OSCE and the European Union (2005, Resolution on the Roma population; 2008 Council Framework Decision/913/JHA) have indicated that that the motivation behind the crime (racism and xenophobia) constituted the basic criterion for the development of legislation in each State. It was concluded that “hate” included those manifestations or acts that publicly incite violence, the dissemination of written materials or images, and the denial of genocide or crimes against humanity.

Hate violence is considered to be the consequence of hate incidents and offences with a negative impact on the physical or mental health of the persons attacked, either short or long term. (Gil-Borrelli CC, et al. Propuesta de actuación para la detección y la atención a víctimas de violencia de odio para profesionales de la salud. Med Clin (Barc). 2017). When expressed in this way, it is a term that becomes more accessible and relatable to the context of healthcare. The impact of hate violence is very relevant to this context, considering that it has physical and psychological repercussions, as well as changes in the person’s behaviour and even an effect on the group to which the victim belongs and the community in which this group is integrated, as will be seen below.

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY

AUGÉ, M. (1996): El sentido de los otros. Actualidad de la antropología. Barcelona, Paidós.

BALIBAR, E.; WALLERSTEIN, I. (1991): Raza, nación, clase. Madrid, Iepala. CRUZ, M. (1999): Hacerse cargo. Sobre responsabilidad e identidad personal. Barce-

lona, Paidós.

DELGADO, M. (1999): El animal público. Barcelona, Anagrama.

DELORS, J. (1996): La educación encierra un tesoro. Informe de la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional sobre la Educación para el S. XXI. Madrid, Santillana. Ediciones Unesco.

MEIRIEU, F. (2001): La opción de educar. Ética y Pedagogía. Barcelona, Octaedro.

NÚÑEZ, V. (1999): Pedagogía social: cartas para navegar en el nuevo milenio. Buenos Aires, Santillana.

SAN ROMAN, T. (1996): Los muros de la separación. Ensayo sobre alterofobia y filantropía. Barcelona, Tecnos / UAB.

SANTAMARÍA, E.; GONZÁLEZ PLACER, F. (comp.): Contra el fundamentalismo escolar. Reflexiones sobre educación, escolarización y diversidad cultural. Barcelona, Virus.

SANTOS REGO, M.A. (eds.) (1994): Teoría y práctica de la educación intercultural.

Barcelona, PPU / Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

SARTORI, G. (2001): La sociedad multiétnica. Pluralismo, multiculturalismo y extranjeros. Madrid, Taurus.

TAYLOR, CH. (1994): La ética de la autenticidad. Barcelona, Paidós.

TODOROV, T. (1991): Nosotros y los Otros. Reflexión sobre la diversidad humana.

México DF, S.XXI.

TOURAINE, A. (1997c): ¿Podremos vivir juntos?. Iguales y diferentes. Madrid, PPC. VV.AA (1994a): Extranjeros en el paraíso. Barcelona, Virus.

1 Full profesor of pedagogy the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

2 Full Professor at the Universidad Internacional de la Rioja and Associate professor at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

3 Doctoral student in the Humanities and Education Programme of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

The training of professionals for caring of hate crimes victims. A view from the third sector

Roberto Moreno López1

Marija Pokos2

Mónica Gómez Medrano3

Civil society is the bearer of democratic self-government. It is constituted through the mutual promises of active citizens who mutually recognize each other as politically equal, respect the integrity of all citizens as well as non-use of violence and commits to the principles of a democratic culture of dialogue. It is an intermediary between the sphere of the private (society) and the sphere of the public (state). Hence, civil society is the basis for building a democratic and modern state. With its developed programs, civil society penetrates system-specific communication processes in which political and/or organizational power is generated and act strategically on these. Without an open civil society, there is no stable, democratic, modern state. Civil society should be the driver of positive trends in society and states in all spheres.

A significant role as the organizational arm of civil society in the development processes play non-governmental organizations (NGOs) promoting the human rights, protection, and safety of individuals. Globally, the champions of protection of human rights have most often been citizens, in particular NGOs, therefore its primary role in focusing the international community on human rights issues4. According to CoE, and when speaking of protection of human rights throughout the world, NGOs play a crucial role in:

– fighting individual violations of human rights

– offering direct assistance to those whose rights have been violated

– lobbying for changes to national, regional or international law

– helping to develop the substance of those laws

– promoting knowledge of, and respect for, human rights among the population.

1. INTRODUCTION

NGOs may attempt to engage in the protection of human rights at various different stages or levels, and the strategies they employ will vary according to the nature of their objectives. Nevertheless, NGOs are protecting human rights through following main actions: direct assistance, collecting accurate information and campaigning and lobbying. This paper will focus on direct assistance that NGOs offer to those who have been victims of human rights violations. Such services may include forms of humanitarian assistance, support and protection or training to develop new skills. Alternatively, where the right is protected by law, they may include legal advocacy or advice on how to present claims. The support process, that human rights NGOs offer, is a structured method of work that aims to support and develop the user’s strengths and capacities through his/her active involvement in the planning and implementation of the individual plan. It is a professional service and partnership between helper and user that aims to produce positive and lasting changes in the user’s life. This process refers to the process of needs assessment, development of an individualized package of services and activities to meet them, coordination, representation, evaluation and monitoring of services provided by different service providers to the user. The goal of the support process is to help the user to meet their needs through the provision of quality and relevant services, i.e. to progress towards security and stability where she/he is able to cope with different life situations. A user-centered approach means that the user assistant puts respect for his or her rights, needs and desires first. It is based on a set of principles that the facilitator should follow in their work: non-discrimination, respect for cultural diversity, data confidentiality, informed consent, mantaining personal and professional boundaries, best interest of users. Those principles should be followed in work with all vulnerable groups: children, women and girls, persons with disabilities, older people, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, Roma, crime victims, etc. The most vulnerable groups need special protection of their rights taking into account their physical and psychological specificities in order to help them cope better.

Right-wing, racist violence, violence against LGBT people and violence in which people are attacked because of their religion or even disability they might have, are widespread problems in Europe, according to OSCE figures. Criminal acts of such violence are often referred to as hate crimes. The impact of hate crime is usually particularly serious for those who are directly affected. To defeat the multifarious impact specialist professional support is often needed. This paragraph will focus on the specific roles that NGOs play in hate crime victim support and explores the value that NGOs add to the delivery of victim support services. In many European countries, victim support services originated in NGOs sector and have been successfully operated by non-state actors, although it is, for the provision of comprehensive victim support services, necessary to ensure that they involve a whole range of different actors both state and non-state. Nevertheless, according to Victim Support Europe Report (2018) non-state actors are better placed on all aspects of delivery of services for victims. Hence, NGOs are better in care delivery, at providing access to services for victims who might need support and at adapting the way they provide service to respond to victims’ needs. This is due to the fact that NGOs can reduce possible administrative barriers, as well as be able to provide their services outside of office hours to ensure services last as needed, can provide mobile support, can adapt to victims’ changing needs and can offer more cost-effective services than those provided by state actors. NGOs provide a number of different services to victims, but still, emotional, psychological and/or practical support and legal aid are usually required by a majority of victims. For instance, psychosocial support is a process of physical and psychological empowerment of an individual, his family and social environment in order to find or gain strength and ways to successfully cope with stress and get involved more quickly in everyday life. Difficult life situations can cause serious psychological consequences and emotional wounds are less visible but it usually takes longer for a person to recover emotionally. Early support and the adjustment process allows a person to cope better with difficult situations. Give such support requires well equipped staff as well. Moreover, NGOs appear to be in a better position to provide appropriate training for both staff and volunteers in order to assure better services for hate crime victims. However, despite the fact that NGOs are in a better position to deliver those services, in order to ensure best service to victims, and establish an efficient system, it is important that different victim support providers work together and alongside each other.

Cooperation between state and non-state actors is crucial and the following examples of good practice confirm to us how essential cooperation between all actors is in order to respond efficiently to victims’ individual situations. In EU MS Croatia synergies between different actors (Office for Human Rights and the Rights of National Minorities to the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Judicial Academy and Centre for Peace Studies) resulted in set of educational training in five regional centres of Croatia on the Criminal Code provisions for a mixed group of professionals (judges, lawyers, state attorneys, police officers and civil society representatives) involved in different aspects of criminal offences: hate crimes, incitement to hatred and violence. Additionaly and worth mentioning, in same MS, all students of the Police Academy receive training on working with victims of anti-LGBT hate crime as part of their formal education. This training is included in the obligatory courses and is present on all levels of education at the Police Academy and the lectures are sometimes held by LGBT activists. Training with professionals, mainly with police oficcers, are ussually conducted in other MS as well, e.g. in Belgium, Antwerp Police Department implemented training on diversity and hate crime for police cadets who recently graduated, while Swedish Police Authority, Sweden establishes a specific Intern police organisation teams for investigation of hate crime and other criminality that threatens fundamental rights and freedoms and the free formation of opinion.

Similar is in the municipal police department in Fuenlabrada, Spain has introduced a specialized police unit focused on promoting positive discourses about diversity in the city and combating hate crime and discrimination based on racism, xenophobia, disability, gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation. Across Europe we can find different experienced and knowledge hate crime victim support providers with a broader audience. Such is the Antidiscrimination Office Styria in Austria that works as a single point of contact, clearing, advising, supporting and monitoring office for those who experience discrimination, and for those want to defend themselves against it; then In IUSTITIA, Czech Republic, a complex hate crime and hate speech prevention centre that is dealing specifically with hate violence in all its width. In Greece, they have the Racist Violence Recording Network which is of national scope and is comprised of 46 actors offering medical, social and legal services or/and coming in direct contact with victims of racist violence or victims of other hate-or bias-motivated violent attacks as well as organizations established by the groups which are usually targeted by racist violence themselves.

Something similar, but of less actors, is the Victims and Witnesses Support Section at the Rijeka County Court, Croatia, a part of an informal network for psychosocial support for victims of all types of criminal offenses. The network consists of 7 organizations including the Centre of social services Rijeka, autonomous women’s houses, a children’s home, different NGOs working with specific group of victims and the Rijeka’s Police Directorate. Every organization in the network has their specific set of knowledge and services so they refer victims to each other and share resources. For example, one organization works with women victims of sexual violence, another provides free legal aid (primary and secondary) and a third one offers psychological support etc. More specific scope of work is, for example, VSELENA – Sexual Assault Referral Centre in Bulgaria opened in partnership with Burgas Municipality, Burgas Regional Police, Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office and Burgas Regional Administration and Demetra Association. The centre has a 24/7 open telephone hotline and it provides 24-hour emergency care, psychosocial and legal support for victims of sexual assault.

The facility is located near the Burgas hospital allowing victims to get medical help alongside other kinds of support. The users of VSELENA centre are mainly women and children. There are as well other specific examples targeting specific vulnerable group and such is Dokustelle – Documentation Center Austria in Austria. It is a documentation and counselling centre of national scope for persons experiencing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism run by an NGO. Another example worth mentioning, especially nowdays when we are forced to be “online”, is and example from Hungary and Malta. Háttér Information and Counselling Hotline, Hungary is an anonymous service operated by trained volunteers and available via free phone number, Skype and chat. Because of its the anonymity and accessibility, the Hotline is useful for identification of victims of violence (and victims of hate crimes) and distribution of information on legislation and services to potential or real victims. In Malta, Kellimni.com is an online support service run by trained staff and volunteers reachable through e-mail, chat and smart messaging 24/7 for support.

2. REFERRAL AND CONTACT WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS

The specialised bodies set up to combat intolerance and hate incidents are governmental agencies. A key element in improving the collection of hate crime data is particularly related to civil society which, because of its relationship with vulnerable groups, understands the particularities of underreporting.

The ODIHR has developed a programme that is designed to enhance the capacity of civil society within the OSCE region to monitor and report hate crimes and violent manifestations of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. Especially in these times of expansion of information and communication technologies and the emergence of a new phenomenon of hate speech both through the media and the internet, the contribution of different civil society organisations that can contribute to the visibility and denunciation of all kinds of situations of harassment and violence experienced by the groups most susceptible to hate crime will be of fundamental importance. In this sense, the programme launched by the ODIHR aims to contribute to the cooperation of civil society at local, regional and national level , with the aim of increasing the number of actors involved to cover a wider geographical area, so that information can be obtained from non-governmental sources in a balanced and credible manner, and to increase resources and knowledge about the phenomenon. The implementation and development of partnerships between civil society and state authorities represents one of the great challenges of present times.

Those who may be involved in the individual assessment to determine the special protection needs of victims of hate crime, as well as the potential need for special protection measures in general, should receive specific training on how to carry out these assessments. Member States should ensure such training for police forces and judicial personnel. In the same way, Member States should ensure such training for police forces and judicial personnel.

Training for lawyers, prosecutors and judges, as well as professionals providing victim support or restorative justice services and social and health services, among others, should be encouraged. This should include training on the special support services to which victims should be referred or specialised training when their activities target victims with special needs, as well as special psychological training, as appropriate.

Simultaneous actions between social protection agencies should be promoted for better support and care of victims, as well as the development of protocols for action that facilitate decision-making by all institutions involved.

2.1. Needs of victims of hate crime: information, support and legal and social protection.

Priority should be given to understanding their personal situation as a whole as a result of the aggression suffered, as well as the conditioning factors that have led to the incident impacting their social situation. This may be influenced by various conditioning factors that professionals must take into account. These include:

– Personal characteristics of the victim: such as age, disability, cultural identity or religious traits, among others.

– Seriousness of the aggression suffered.

– Risk of further assault and social vulnerability of the victim.

– Personal situation and risk of further contact with their aggressors.

– Need for personal accompaniment during the legal process following the assault.

– Need for protection and the preservation of privacy.

– Support for physical, emotional and social rehabilitation. Continued health monitoring and referral to Social Services.

– Detailed and clear information on legal processes and available support resources.

3. PROFESSIONALS WITHIN THE HEALTH SYSTEM

Health and non-health staff, including social workers, in the social and health care field, must provide information aimed at providing comprehensive, physical and emotional care, preventive as far as possible, based on the indicators that determine the risk of being victims of hate crime linked to the traits previously outlined: race, ethnic or national origin, disability, language, sexual, cultural, religious identity, etc. As well as establishing, on the basis of the relevant protocols, the risk criteria that allow for preventive and urgent referral to mental health services in cases of aggression.

Social workers in health care settings can be the first facilitator of legal and social resources to facilitate a victim of hate crime to receive support, advice and guidance regarding the legal process to be followed, formalisation of the complaint, as well as community services in all other necessary areas.

Public health workers can assess the risk and protection factors of people and groups in a situation of vulnerability due to hate violence. In addition to identification, health personnel must provide a detailed medical report on the aggressions suffered and their characterisation as a possible hate crime, as well as establishing proposals and pathways for referral to specialised therapeutic services.

In relation to social care, the social workers will recommend and facilitate the contact between the victim and the general social services or organisations specialising in care for groups exposed to this type of violence. To this end, it is advisable to have a guide which lists the various social resources of reference in the local area of the health centre in question. In addition, the social workers working at the victim’s health centre should be contacted in order to ensure continuity of care (Gil et all, 2018).

Information and social education are essential to raise awareness of this public health phenomenon in society as a whole, in which health professionals also participate.

State resources

– Law enforcement agencies: contact, basic information on the reporting procedure. National Office for the Fight against Hate Crimes. Social interlocutor of the National Police www.interior.gob.es and attention to victims: asistencia.ondod@interior.es

– Services of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Offices for the criminal protection of equal treatment and against discrimination.

– Organisations for legal advice. Network of delegated prosecutors for the criminal protection of equality and against discrimination. www.fiscal.es

Regional and local resources

– Hate crime victims’ helplines of the Bar Associations.

– Crime Victims’ Assistance Offices-Law 4/2015, of 27 April, on the Statute of the Victims of Crime, article 23. These offices have the function of assessing the protection needs of victims, taking into special consideration crimes committed for racist, anti-Semitic or other reasons related to ideology, religion or beliefs, family situation, belonging to an ethnic group, race or nation, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or identity, illness or disability.

– Social and educational civil society organizations, by subject: racial or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity: NGOs, Foundations. Associations. Whose aim is advising, supporting and monitoring of the process.

– Service of Assistance to Victims of Racial or Ethnic Discrimination (Council for the Elimination of Racial or Ethnic Discrimination): www.igualdadynodiscriminación.es

– Together against hate speech and hate crime. Innovative cooperation initiatives between public administration, civil society and international organisations. RAIS Foundation. www.plataformaong.org

– Networks against hate. www.felgtb.org

– HATENTO. Observatory on Hate Crimes against Homeless People. www.raisfundacion.org

– Observatory on Antisemitism. www.observatorioantisemitismo.fcje.org

– Observatorio Estatal de la Discapacidad (OED). www.observatoriodeladiscapacidad.info

– ARCOPOLI. LGTB Association of the Community of Madrid. https://arcopoli.org/

– Madrid Observatory against LGTBphobia. https://contraelodio.org/wp/

– Movement against Intolerance

– SOS Racism

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gil-Borrelli, C. C., Martín-Ríos, M. D., & Rodríguez-Arenas, M. Á. (2018). “Propuesta de actuación para la detección y la atención a víctimas de violencia de odio para profesionales de la salud”. Med. clín, 150 (4), 155-159.

Gil-Borrelli, C.C, Dolores Martín-Ríos, M.D., López Corcuera, L., Reche Martínez, B., Torres Santos-Olmo, R., Muriel Pati, E., Rodríguez-Arenas, M.A. (2020): “Elaboración de un cuestionario de detección de casos de violencia de odio en urgencias hospitalarias”, Gac Sanit 34 (2) Mar-Apr 202022 Mayo 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.01.006

Ibarra, E. et al, (2018). Contra el Discurso de Odio y la Intolerancia. Intolerancia y discurso de odio: amenazas para la democracia. Movimiento contra la Intolerancia.

1 Roberto Moreno López, Professor at the International University of La Rioja and associate professor at the University of Castilla-La Mancha.

2 Marija Pokos, European Projects Technician Llere Association.

3 Monica Gómez Medrano. Director of inclusion projects of the Association Llere.

4 https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/human-rights-activism-and-the-role-of-ngos

Health Care Guidelines against Hate Violence

Montserrat Pulido Fuentes1

César Arroyo López2

Juan Antonio Flores Martos3

Roberto Moreno López4

Rosa Marí Ytarte5

1. INTRODUCTION

In Spain, the Policía Nacional (National Police) and the Guardia Civil (Civil Guard – one of the two national police forces) already has an updated “Protocolo de Actuación de las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad para los delitos de odio”, and many of the of the enforcement bodies at regional and even municipal level have been working for years on incorporating these practices into their work, training their professionals and improving their intervention in possible cases of hate crime. This social awareness of hate crimes as an emerging problem that must be confronted is not reflected in the field of public health and our health reality: there is no protocol for the care of victims of hate violence in the health sector in Spain, despite the fact that on many occasions, it is in the health sector where victims of hate attacks have their first contact with others following the incident and are cared for by social work and health professionals. However, in this first “window” where the crime is first visible, with the need to specifically attend to this reality, we do not have a useful instrument such as a protocol or guidelines against hate crime.

This proposal for health intervention against hate violence is intended as a tool to start examining the issue more closely, from all angles. It aims to be an orientation, offering guidelines for action to identify, detect, prevent hate violence and care for victims. We are aware that caring for victims of hate violence in healthcare settings is like a putting a band –aid on an open wound– – that is to say that it goes nowhere near far enough in addressing the many aspects of the issue. It is the final link in a chain that did not take into consideration human rights, among other aspects and fails to consider that at the all such crime and conflict, of is the issue of prejudice. That said, the health promotion framework, is an appropriate space from which to start designing preventive strategies to address hate violence. Preventive hate crime policies must be take into account the causes that generate and foster hateful attitudes, as due to the link with violence, the passage from hate to violence is very close, it is a slippery slope (Colomer et al, 2003:124).

Why do we need to develop guidelines for the care of victims of hate violence? The use of protocols in the health sector has been recognised as a operational tool for several decades. In an attempt to standardise and homogenise the guidelines to be followed, in a coordinated way under common objectives, this type of tool facilitates work and procedures in many areas, including, of course, in the health sector, which has worked with this kind of methodology on a regular basis. Evidently, the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines necessitates an unequivocal scientific basis, so that the guidelines become an intellectual product. From the traditionally described concept, in which the object of the guidelines corresponds to the standardisation of procedure, in order to obtain better results in their evaluation, these proposed guidelines are a work in progress and subject to change. Understanding that health is a dynamic process, which is determined by the social determinants of health, it is necessary to be attentive to social, political, structural, economic and other changes in order to revise strategies, protocols and care guidelines.

The development of guidelines for action for the healthcare sector in the face of hate violence is a significant challenge given the scant attention that has been paid to this public health problem, specifically in the socio-health field as well as at an international level (Rodríguez et al, 2018, Blazquez, 2013). This circumstance offers a somewhat bleak outlook for professionals who have to deal with hate violence on a daily basis and, above all, take charge of, attend to and care for the victims of these crimes. In this sense, the “Support and advice through health system for hate crimes victims-SHELTER” project included a research that has been an opportunity and a source of information for the design of this protocol. While the literature review has been fundamental to take the first steps, it has been the experience of the professionals participating in the research of the project, as well as the needs expressed by the victims that has allowed us to approach, with all possible precautions and necessary reservations, the design of what can be a guideline on the actions that should be taken by healthcare and social work professionals and other aspects that should be considered when caring for victims of hate violence.

The fieldwork revealed how some of the healthcare professionals have been devising possible strategies to resolve day-to-day problems. The enormous value of these experiences allows us to discover how, on occasion, they have interwoven relationships with groups or associations that also offer care to victims, which has an added value –the community aspect– in reaching an attending to what is not achieved by the public institutions (Ibarra, 2006). These links and collaborations prove to be a source of reassurance and support for professionals who have to face this harsh social reality on a regular basis, allowing them to offer some response and some resources to their patients. In these interviews, there are also professionals who do not have these resources and skills at their disposal and feel overwhelmed; they feel that there is little that can be done to assist victims. Furthermore, there is a third group of professionals who do not face this type of public health problem, either because they simply do not see it, because it does not occur in their workplace or because they have not recognised the issue when faced with it.

This guide aims to serve as a kind of essential “lens” to help healthcare and social work professionals to shine light on both the potential victims of hate violence and the effects of hate on their target population. It also aims to prevent a conceptual gap that we have detected in the fieldwork research of the SHELTER project. In this regard, not only the research, but also the different editions of training courses for social and health professionals have revealed a lack of information and a significant lack of understanding amongst these professionals of what hate crimes and hate violence are, as well as the confusion with other types of violence (gender-based violence, child abuse, etc.). For this reason, conceptual clarification is needed in relation to hate crimes and hate violence, on the one hand, to delimit them individually and, on the other, to facilitate their differentiation.

This guide is one of the products resulting from the implementation of the “Networking” package of the SHELTER project. It aims to provide health and social-health professionals with valuable information, recommendations and useful and practical tools to improve the care and support for victims of hate violence when they access the health system and thus the care they receive.

The information and recommendations contained in this document are based on the data and conclusions obtained during the research carried out in Spain by the UCLM/Llere team, with the support of the Castilla-La Mancha Health Service (SESCAM), the National Paraplegic Foundation of Toledo, the Primary Care Assistance Management of the Madrid Health Service (SERMAS) and the Catalan Health Institute, as part of the SHELTER project. In this regard, the complete data on the sample and results can be found in the Spanish National Report6, published by the UCLM and freely accessible on the project website7.

2. THE GUIDE AND THE SHELTER PROJECT

Prior to outlining the recommendations and guidelines for health professionals, it is necessary to base these indications on the conclusions offered by the health professionals surveyed and interviewed during the research process, as well as by the victims interviewed. Thus, the main findings on the results obtained from the research, specifically in Spain, can be summarised as follows:

– There is a significant lack of knowledge of what hate crimes and hate violence are among health professionals, which is also often confused with other types of violence (gender-based violence, child abuse, etc.).

– Most health professionals have not had specific training on hate crime and hate violence and most health services do not have a protocol for dealing with such situations.

– In this same sense, professionals recognise the lack of a multidisciplinary approach and the limited knowledge of existing resources for the referral of these situations. The lack of knowledge, training, resources and coordination point to the conclusion that, at present, the capacity to detect hate violence victims in health services is inadequate. This was indicated by the professionals themselves, suggesting that we may be faced with an under-diagnosis of these situations.

– Although emergency services are a fast and efficient resource for the care of physical injuries of people who are victims of hate crime, professionals in this field are aware that they are not the ideal resource, neither for the detection, surveillance and follow-up of these patients who, in an emergency situation, do not report the aggression they have experienced. They are also not adequately equipped for the treatment of the most chronic and most common consequences for victims, such as those of a psychological nature. Primary Care (PC) within the health system is considered to be the most appropriate place for the correct care of people, although more and better training is needed, as well as coordination with the available services (psychological care, follow-up) and improvement in detection capacity.

– The consideration of the clinical interview as a fundamental tool in the detection of cases, as well as in the intervention and counselling of victims was highlighted.

– The lack of time and the difficulty in developing an empathetic relationship with the victims in the clinical interview was also shown in the data recorded in the health reports, as in half of the cases they do not record important aspects for the subsequent treatment and follow-up of the situation.

– Health professionals are open to improving victim care and praised the intervention and coordination with law enforcement agencies.

– Finally, health professionals are aware that many cases may be undetected, undiagnosed, even unaccounted for, if victims do raise them up by themselves, given the above-mentioned difficulties in detection by health services.

3. HATE CRIMES AND VIOLENCE

The concept of hate crime has been used in jurisprudence and constitutes a different type of conduct distinct from other crime which is punishable by law (aggression, harassment, graffiti, etc) which carries aggravated sanctions due to the characteristics of the conduct itself. This distinct element would be the prejudicial motivation of the perpetrator of the offence. In other words, the person who commits the crime is driven by prejudice towards a group with specific characteristics that identify them. Therefore, the motivation of the perpetrator of the crime is the relevant element for the detection of hate crime. It should be noted that only hate crimes that have been tried and sentenced as such (applying the aggravating circumstances set out in the Penal Code) are considered and recorded as hate crimes. However, acts that are perceived by the victims or any other person as racist, xenophobic or other types of intolerance, are considered hate incidents, even if they are not crimes or criminal acts.

It is important not to confuse hate, in the more traditional sense of emotion, with the notion that hatred that goes hand in hand with hate crime, as stated in the report on the conceptual delimitation of hate crimes8:

Hate, in the sense in which it is applied in so-called hate crimes (implying a particular denial of human dignity – Article 10 EC), does not necessarily refer to the biological presence of this emotion. It is used in the classic sense of a desire for evil, originated by a prejudice or intolerant bias against a certain group of people and, where appropriate, against the specific person who shares the characteristics that generate this desire (Díaz, 2018, p. 7).

A hate crime is not, therefore, a crime of sentiment (Ibarra, 2015), but rather, it constitutes an objectifiable action or discourse, even if it contains ideological or prejudicial subjective elements with defined features (Díaz, 2018; López, 2017). Some of the main characteristics are:

– They are based on prejudices towards individuals or groups on the basis of their actual or assigned characteristics.

– They reduce people to some of the traits or stereotypes from which rejection of them is constructed.

– The victim is always singled out on the basis of the group or collective to which he or she belongs and is targeted for those characteristics of the group or collective that cannot be changed.

– It is aggressive behaviour or hostile speech that incites violence.

– It always represents a threat to the collective and divides communities.

It is, therefore, a crime that aims to humiliate or denigrate the victim and the group he or she represents, and for this reason, victims of hate violence are most often considered to be part of those groups or collectives that have been historically and socially discriminated against (Díaz, 2020, p. 20).

When referring to the health field in particular, it is necessary to include the concept of “hate violence”, as a consequence of hate incidents and hate crimes which has a negative impact on the physical or mental health of the people attacked, either in the short or long term (Gil et al., 2020, p. 167).

3.1. Impact on health at the bio-psycho-social level

Hate crime and the violence associated with it have a very significant impact on the physical and mental health of the people who are subjected to them, as well as the very significant impact on the group to which they belong and the wider societies in which the crimes take place, fracturing and polarising them.

Some examples of the impacts on people’s health:

– Physical: this depends on the type of aggression, but can range from mild to very severe impacts and even death.

– Psychological and emotional: This type of crime attacks the identity of the person, as it is a set characteristic from which they cannot separate, greatly increasing their vulnerability. Other effects are terror, rage or anger, fear for themselves or their family members, loss of self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness and helplessness (Gil et al, 2018).

– Impact on human groups: It is important to emphasise that in instances of hate crime, the victim is singled out out by the perpetrator because he or she belongs to a human group. In this sense, this human group also becomes a recipient of the action as they receive the discriminatory message of rejection Therefore, the collective as a whole is an indirect victim, as this type of act as a threat to any of its members due to the prejudices and motivation of the perpetrator.

– Impact on society as a whole: This type of crime attacks the fundamental values of democratic societies, as it violates people’s dignity, as well as denying their fundamental rights (equality, respect, etc.).

In this sense, education plays an important role in prevention because it addresses the structural causes of this type of violence. Hate tends to be consolidated through many different factors, so tackling prejudiced attitudes will always prevent the subsequent application of the more immediate and less visible discriminatory behaviours, as well as other conscious and deliberate violent actions.

To illustrate this point, we have included the so-called “pyramid of hate”, in which prejudiced behaviours are depicted, and where the complexity of these behaviours is explained from the lowest to the highest levels. All behaviours have a negative impact on individuals and human groups, but as these behaviours are represented at the higher levels of the pyramid, they have consequences that are life threatening. Being a pyramid, the higher levels are supported by the lower ones, meaning that by working on and combatting the issues in the lower levels, we can work to prevent those above. Moreover, the lower levels represent the stages that are less visible and more internalised by people. Education and awareness-raising become essential tools to tackle them.

Figure 1. Pyramid of Hate (Antidefamation League, 2019)

As mentioned above, the SHELTER project conducted research that allowed us to obtain valuable information on these aspects. Although one of the main findings of this research indicated that health professionals had difficulties in initially detecting potential victims of hate violence, they identified many possible impacts on the health of victims such as:

– Physical consequences of hate violence based on SHELTER data: The main consequences of victimisation, in the opinion of most of the health professionals surveyed (66.3%), consist of acute physical injuries, such as bruises, fractures, lacerations, bleeding or infections. However, to a much lesser extent, according to 13.1% of the respondents, longer-term health problems, leading to a perception of poor health status, was also recorded.

Graph 1. Most common physical consequences.
National Report Spain SHELTER (Díaz et al., 2020)

– Psychological consequences of hate violence: Three of the choices in the survey responses accounted for the largest share. In order these are: powerlessness or helplessness (25.1%), extreme fear (21.1%) and stress and anxiety (20.6%). The second of the three main impacts, which respondents were asked to indicate, focuses on helplessness or powerlessness (21.6%), stress or anxiety (14.5%) and depression (13.6%). Finally, for the third consequence, in order of importance, the respondents recorded stress or anxiety (17.6%), depression (15.1%) and helplessness or powerlessness (14.6%).

Figure 2. Main psychological consequences for victims.
National Report Spain SHELTER (Díaz et al., 2020)

3.2. Vulnerable groups and their protected characteristics

Victims of hate crime are singled out by perpetrators on the basis of their real or perceived membership of a particular group. This human stereotyped group shared a series of common characteristics, against which the perpetrator of the aggression places his or her intolerance and rejection.

In general, this type of violence is manifested in traditionally vulnerable groups that are discriminated against on the basis of their characteristics and circumstances, although hate crimes could also be committed against people who do not necessarily belong to these groups, but who have been targeted because of their identity.

The Spanish Penal Code includes different personal conditions or causes of discrimination that provide for special protection within the legal framework. This list includes:

– Ethnicity and race.

– Ideology, religion and beliefs.

– Nationality.

– Sex and gender.

– Sexual orientation and identity.

– Illness and disability.

As can be seen, there are groups that have not been included in this list: the homeless (aporophobia), age (ageism, gerontophobia), and even physical appearance (which includes obesophobia, fatphobia), among others. In this sense, civil society organisations are calling for comprehensive legal measures, which “can intervene effectively in all areas, dimensions and circumstances, as well as to support and protect the victims” (Ibarra, 2018).

It should also be noted that victims of such crimes may not in fact be part of the group with which the perpetrator identifies them. In such cases, hate violence may be motivated by the perpetrator’s perception that the person actually belongs to a certain group (e.g. someone could be mistaken for being an immigrant without actually being an immigrant and be attacked for this reason), which is known as being a victim by association. The person could even be targeted because of their relationship to the group (e.g. a person who works in an organisation that defends LGTBI rights).

In any of the above cases, the mere perception of the victim implies that the act should be investigated with a view to determining whether or not it is a hate crime9.

In the case of Spain, the groups that suffer most from hate violence and that have been identified by the enforcement bodies are included in the Report on the evolution of hate crimes in Spain10. These data have been compiled annually since 2013, and are official national data, although social organisations have expressed reservations, which indicate that, in their experience with victims and due to the particularities of these groups, they believe that only 15% of hate incidents committed are reported and that there are people whose profile does not appear in this register11.

3.3. Guidelines for the identification of hate crimes.

We have previously mentioned that the motivation of the perpetrator in hate crimes, prejudices and perceptions of the victim, are the main elements that constitute this type of aggression. However, it is often difficult to determine and identify this type of mental attitude, even more so when we are not dealing directly with the aggressor. For this reason, it has been by pointing to different indicators that give information that should be obtained in order to verify whether there is a hate motivation behind such conduct, and if so, to identify, prosecute, and judge it as such. These indicators are “objective facts, circumstances, or patterns connected to a criminal act(s) that, alone or together with other facts or circumstances, suggest that the offender’s actions were motivated in whole or in part by any kind of bias” (Frucillo et al, 2015; Ibarra et al, 2018). Therefore, these indicators do not prove whether or not there is a hate motivation behind the incident, but they do support investigations in that direction.

Some of them are:

1. The perception of the victimised person: In this sense, the main international organisations recognise that the victim’s perception of the possible hate attack should already oblige the different agents to conduct an investigation.

2. Comments, written statements or gestures in the context of the incident.

3. Differences in characteristics and antagonism between the alleged perpetrator and the victim.

4. The belonging of the victim to a group which is often targeted by hate groups.

5. Drawings, marks, symbols, and graffiti.

6. Involvement of organised hate groups or their members.

7. History of crime and offences.

8. Place and time.

9. Patterns/frequency of previous crimes or incidents.

10. Nature of the violence.

11. The lack of other motives.

Based on these data and in the case of at-risk groups susceptible to this type of violence, professionals should ask patients if they have suffered any type of hate crime, explaining to them what they are. The health system thus becomes a key resource in the event of the suspicion or the occurrence of hate crime. Secondary to the symptoms and health impacts mentioned above, any possible cause of hate crime or violence should also be investigated. Indicators in this case would be insomnia, isolation, or, as mentioned, non-specific clinical aspects, patients who frequent the institution very often, with trivial and non-specific symptoms (as is common with many types of violence).

If we are able to detect these indicators in the health sector, we will be helping to make it easier for victims and enforcement bodies to identify that an incident has occurred in which hate has been a determining factor, thus setting in motion subsequent procedures that help to prevent, mitigate, and avoid the effects of this type of violence.

4. PREVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION

Promotional activities include all policy measures, social actions, information, communications, the reorientation of services and health education as the main tools aimed at improving and strengthening the skills and capacities of individuals. Social, environmental and economic conditions also play an important role in mitigating the impact of this type of crime on public and individual health. Work will be carried out with the entire population in general, and specifically on the at-risk populations susceptible to this type of violence, to prevent it from occurring. This includes all the interventions that the health and non-health fields should set in motion to prevent or identify them at an early stage. They include e information campaigns on this public health problem, specifically aimed at health professionals and the general public, who will be key in identifying this type of violence.

Possible preventive actions:

– The dissemination of information leaflets and posters placed in visible places providing information on hate crime, resources, contact telephone numbers, etc. This makes the general population and those vulnerable to these crimes, view this professional as sensitive to and aware of their reality.

– Media outreach programmes

– Collaborations and joint projects with community actors such as associations, NGOs, local councils, etc. For example: days against hate violence that can be organised by the health centre, NGOs or neighbourhood associations. Health workers can also echo and be involved in the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or similar commemorations for vulnerable groups or victims of such violence, as well as work with other specific groups if they are more active in this area.

– The ways in which our health services relate and interact with key actors in the country is very important. It is necessary to detect, contact and establish positive relations with those relevant bodies, institutions, organisations and professionals that could be required in any of the phases of prevention, as well as in the intervention and support for victims. Therefore, having a map of community resources, their competencies, services and potential is key.

Secondary prevention is about identifying pathological processes and risk factors at an early stage, when it is still possible to intervene to improve their prognosis. In this case, we have been able to detect people who are at risk of suffering hate violence when they have accessed the health services. When we come across people who fit a certain profile as previously indicated, and also present a clinical condition that may make them vulnerable to hate crime, we must address it and carry out a screening (secondary prevention). From this preventive framework, we must establish specific guidelines for action with this population, i.e. people who come to emergency or Primary Care services should be asked if they have suffered on any occasion, or if they currently believe that they are suffering from any type of violence, specifically hate violence.

If it turns out not to be the case, the opportunity should be taken to inform people about what hate crime is and what resources are available should it happen in future. It should be borne in mind that on many occasions they conceal it out of fear, or they prefer not to talk about it due to feelings of shame. From PC we should always ask about it or address it, always bearing in mind that in the first few consultations they may not divulge it to us, choosing to share it at a later date.

If it transpires that a hate crime has taken place, we must investigate and take a closer look into the case and the clinic. In the absence of standardised and approved tools, the screening consists of asking about the aspects indicated, both contextual to the current event and prior to it: perception, comments, drawings, place, time, visible and non-visible clinical data that can be obtained. In order to do this, it is important to have a private and friendly space where the victim feels safe and comfortable to speak up.

When violence or hate crime is identified, we must try to prevent further serious consequences that we also know occur, such as psychological after effects and mental health problems, as well as suicide (tertiary prevention).

The commitment from health institutions is necessary and it is essential to train and raise awareness among health professionals, and human resources should be adequately prepared for the care and prevention of the psycho-social consequences of hate crime, with strong connections to and community participation of health centres. In any of the phases, an active identification of cases is needed, with a knowledge of the profiles of the most susceptible populations, the most frequent signs and symptoms, and the signs and signals that indicate the instance of hate crime.

Health services are seen as fundamental in the detection and intervention hate violence. The strategies put in place thus far have generally ignored the socio-health space as a key part of the response, which have focused more on sectors such as the judiciary and the police, and even on the social sector, through non-governmental organisations, which are work more closely with the groups that are mainly victims of this type of crime.

The emergency services, which is where people go when they have suffered aggression or who present physical consequences of violence, are in an advantageous position to identify this type of incident. On occasion, it will be the only place where victims can be identified, as sometimes their situation of vulnerability, or their lack of knowledge of social and health resources, may mean that they do not to return for further consultation beyond urgent and immediate care for physical injuries. Therefore, it will be the place where, in addition to the clinical approach, the necessary social, legal and public health interventions are initiated for a thorough identification and intervention process, which requires close monitoring and follow-up of these people who are victims of hate crimes.

5. DETECTION AND INTERVENTION AT THE INITIAL LEVEL: SUPPORT AND FOLLOW-UP

Tackling this public health problem is a challenge for social and health professionals, due to its complexity, as well as the lack of training and the little attention it has received from institutions and society in general. For all these reasons, under-detection must be avoided. To do this, it is strategic to make the causes of the aggression known, avoiding a lack of response on the part of the victim, for which a careful and sensitive approach must be taken, and a climate of trust and security must be generated.

By way of a proposal for action, we present the following procedure. Despite being presented in stages, some of them may occur in an overlapping manner in certain situations, due to the actions of the healthcare personnel themselves.

5.1. Profiles and situations of vulnerability

As Aguilar García et al (2015:268) point out, “a distinguishing feature of hate crimes is that they involve a clear manifestation of rejection of the victim’s identity”. Therefore, the impact on victims is significant, and is accompanied by a greater sense of vulnerability. In this sense, victims tend not to report these incidents for a number of different reasons:

– Fear of reprisal from the perpetrator(s) if they do so.

– Rejection of police forces. The history of relations between certain groups (for example migrants, people in an irregular administrative situation) and the police has not always been and therefore does not encourage the reporting of this type of crime.

– Lack of awareness. Victims are often unaware that this type of aggression has specific provisions because it attacks people’s fundamental rights and is given special protection attention by the law and by the enforcement bodies.

– Normalisation. The situation of vulnerability of people who suffer hate violence causes many of them to normalise the rejection and violence they suffer, which leads them to accept the situation as normal.

– Irregular administrative situations. In line with the above, certain groups do not have regular administrative status, which makes them particularly vulnerable victims (i.e. irregular administrative situations).

– Impact on people’s lives and privacy. Certain groups tend to hide their identity from the rest of society, as a result of the rejection they have historically suffered. Therefore, when faced with a hate attack, they will try to avoid giving much information or denouncing the situation.

Although non-governmental organisations have stressed that the data on hate crimes collected by the enforcement bodies are lower than those that actually take place, in Spain the Statistical System of Criminality indicated that, in 2019, crimes based on ideology, racism and/or xenophobia accounted for more than 60% of the recorded incidents, followed by crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity (16%) (Report on the evolution of hate crimes in Spain, 2019, Ministry of the Interior). With regard to the types of incidents that occur, threats and assaults are the main forms of hate violence, followed by degrading treatment and with sexual violence occurring much less frequently (though occurring nonetheless).

These types of hate incidents are mostly committed on urban public roads and other roads, followed by in homes and hospitality establishments, while the rest occur in leisure spaces, football grounds, open spaces, religious centres and other facilities or venues.

As we have pointed out above, both the emergency services and Primary Care should ask about and address this public health problem, always keeping it in mind as a possibility. It may be that it is not shared with professionals in the initial consultations and may need to be investigated further with great care.

5.2. HATE CRIME INDICATORS12

The following questions would allow information to be gathered about the possible hate incident, which would facilitate the specific attention which needs to be paid to the victim and would guide possible subsequent investigations by the State security forces and other relevant bodies. The healthcare professional may be more accessible and closer to the victims, making it easier for information to be gathered in the first moments of the incident, which is key to detecting instances of possible hate violence.

1) Victim’s perception13

– Do the victim or witnesses perceive that the criminal act (the assault, the threats...) that occurred was motivated by prejudice?

– Was the victim at a group-related event (demonstration, prayer, meeting, etc.) at the time of the incident?

2) Comments, written statements or graffiti14.

– Did the person(s) suspected of the assault make statements or gestures, or leave written comments online? about the victim’s membership in a group?

– Were any drawings, marks, symbols or graffiti left at the scene?

– If the target of the crime was a property, was it a place of religious or cultural significance, such as a cultural centre or historical monument?

3) Differences between perpetrator and victim on ethnic, religious or cultural grounds.

– Do the suspect and victim come from different races, religions or ethnic origins, hold different nationalities or have a different sexual orientation?

– Are there previous instances of hostility between the victim group and the victimizer’s group?

– In the area where the incident occurred, is the victim considered to be outnumbered by a majority of the members a different group?

4) Belonging of the victim to a “target” group of hate groups.

– Does the incident coincide with a date significant to the group to which the victim belongs (religious, political, etc.)?

– Was the victim busy preparing activities to promote their group?

– The victim may not be a member of the target group, but may be a solidarity activist with the group, for example. It may be the case that the victim is in the company of some of the members of the vulnerable group.

– The victim may have been identified (by their ideological, musical, sporting, country of origin characteristics...) and is rejected by the hate group based on intolerance towards this difference.

5) Drawings, marks, symbols, and graffiti.

– What prejudices and messages have been delivered during the incident?

– Did the suspects have any identifying symbols that refer to an ideology or group that promotes hatred?

– Are the suspected persons known to spread hate speech in any of the above-mentioned forms?

– Are they known to disseminate false news that fuels hatred and intolerance, and does he promote activities in that direction?

6) Organised hate groups15.

– Did the assailants leave any objects at the scene of the incident that suggest a particular ideology?

– Is there evidence that such a group is active in the neighbourhood (e.g. posters, banners, graffiti or leaflets)?

– Was the offender’s behaviour associated with membership of a hate organisation?

– Did the aggressor group or person have any clothing, tattoos, badges that associate them with a particular hate group?

– Have any hate groups recently made public threats against a particular group of people?

7) History of crimes and offences

– Does the victim know if there have been previous incidents in the same area and with victims belonging to the same group? Have there been incidents in the same area, and/or towards the same group, at very close intervals in time (e.g. the same time)?

– Has the victim previously received harassment, threats, insults by mail, telephone, social media, or verbal abuse based on his or her membership of a group targeted by hate groups?

– Are you aware of any recent incidents, offences or crimes motivated by intolerance that have led to retaliation?

8) Place and time.

– Did the incident occur on a date of special significance (a religious holiday or national day)?

– Did it occur during a specific part of the day, when other members associated with the victim group frequent the area when the incident occurred (e.g. during prayers)?

– Was the victim near an area or place commonly associated with or frequented by a particular group (e.g., a community centre or mosque, church or other place of worship)?

– Did the incident occur shortly after a change in the presence of a minority in the area (e.g. the opening of a refugee centre)?

9) Patterns/frequency of previous crimes or incidents

– Have there been similar incidents in the same area against the same group?

– Has there been a recent escalation of incidents against the same group, starting from low-level harassment and non-criminal activity to more serious criminal behaviour such as vandalism or assault?

– Have there been any previous incidents that may have triggered a retaliatory response?

– Did the victim or community recently receive threats or other forms of intimidation in the form of phone calls or e-mails?

10) Nature of violence16.

– Did the incident involve unprovoked and extreme violence or degrading treatment?

– Was the incident made public, e.g. by being recorded and published on the Internet?

– Did the violence incorporate racist symbols, and did any damage to property utilise symbols intended to defile or desecrate?

5.3. GUIDELINES FOR DETECTION

In this context, it should be understood by those utilising the guide that the victim’s situation allows this process of detection of the incident to be carried out. If the patient is unable to do so, it can also be conducted with the family and witnesses, companions, etc.

Situations of vulnerability

– Ask about the context of the facts, and not about the victim’s identity and private life (unless it is essential for sufficient identification).

– Explore the causes of the aggression, if known or suspected (perception of hate crime).

– Find out the number of people that have carried out the assault, any use of weapons or discriminatory/defamatory language.

– Examine whether sexual abuse has occurred (sometimes assault is reported and any mention of rape is omitted), location (including on social media), time of occurrence as well as the identity of the perpetrator.

– Ask whether he/she was alone or accompanied, whether there were any witnesses and, if accompanied, by whom.

– Collecting the details of those accompanying the victim is of great importance. It should also be taken into account that sometimes they take them to the emergency room and then leave.

Profiles

Taking into account the profiles of the people who are subjected to this type of crime, the fact that the victim belongs to a group that is the target of hate crime should not neglect any other possible scenarios and profiles that could be included in this framework. However, it should be considered that on many occasions social and health care professionals do not know the profile of the people they attend to. The person should be consulted if they believe that the cause of the aggression was motivated by prejudice or discrimination, even if they do not belong to the group to which the aggression refers.

Facilitating questions

In this sense, and taking into account the series of questions posed above, the professional should ask the victim what he/she believes is the reason for the aggression, and the impact of this, at the same time as exploring the emotional effect of the crime. It should also be assessed whether it is the right time and place to ask the array of questions that can help in the correct identification of a possible hate crime.

Attitudes

Respectful and protective action by health professionals towards victims must include:

– Respect for the victim’s identity and experience. This is also the case for witnesses and companions. This is sometimes a very traumatic experience for all involved.

– Establish a climate of trust and make them feel that the healthcare space is a safe space (a space that guarantees privacy, which is sometimes not possible in emergency services). Avoid making specific interventions, interviews, examinations if confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, in order to avoid re-victimisation.

– Encourage victims to cooperate when recording the medical history. Do not ignore any details and record the facts and all information collected in the injury report, medical records and relevant information systems.

– Provide information on the first steps that the patient could take. Direct victims to the social and health resources available, giving special relevance to the PC services and social workers of their centre of reference (sometimes they depend on the local councils...), available protection systems, NGOs, as well as informing the police, Public Prosecutor’s Office or investigating Courts of the facts, following the already established guidelines or protocols in other areas, such as gender-based violence.

– Point out the relevance of the psychological or mental health problems that can occur in this situation of aggression, both in the victim and in their family. Record the significant impact that these hate crimes can have following the incident in order to continue monitoring them in primary care services.

5.4. GUIDELINES FOR PRIMARY CARE (PC)

It should be assessed whether the patient is attending primary care facilities as a result of a referral from an organisation, or whether the patient comes for another reason. In this scenario, we must accompany the victim and we will be attentive to his or her needs, which we will try to meet.

If the incident has occurred, as with the the emergency services, we would try to ascertain the victim’s perception and level of knowledge of the social and healthcare system. Sometimes they are unaware of the resources available to them: “They didn’t think they could do anything”.

Possible cases of hate crime should be referred, in which injuries, behavioural disorders, anxiety, with a recurrent character and in which there are indicators of possible hate violence (aggressions, threats, harassment, etc. ) are followed up. In this scenario, the level of trust and the capacity for care that victims refer to in relation to the socio-health, judicial and police systems, etc. can be addressed. It is worth establishing the victim’s perception of vulnerability, which contributes to the creation of a warm and comfortable environment, where victims and their families can be continuously monitored and supervised, in order to identify any after-effects from the crime that may appear.

We must bear in mind that victims’ perceptions are often framed in the context of a lack of knowledge of the legal situation in which they find themselves. This does not prevent the patient from setting the pace in the care process, as the prevailing ideas are: “they thought no one would do anything, this is no big deal either”; fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction from the police, or too much affectation to tell the police; shame, embarrassment, “I didn’t want anyone to know”; fear of the attacker, fear of reprisal, which leads them to resolve it individually, without communicating it to their family or anyone else, “they wouldn’t believe it”; “I didn’t want the attacker to be arrested or to get in trouble with the police”; “I thought it was my fault”; “someone stopped me or dissuaded me”; “I asked for help elsewhere”; “I went straight to court to report the incident”.

Epidemiological investigation of these cases will make it possible to know the magnitude of this health problem and to offer comprehensive quality care to victims of hate violence. Furthermore, primary care services should take into account the effects on the community, of action which is motivated by the rejection of a characteristic of the victim, and that its effects can be extended to all people who share that same characteristic. This implies carrying out community interventions in a network with other groups, associations, neighbours, to energize social action starting from the health centre, as well as to support those interventions carried out in other settings and sectors. Protecting the victim’s personal privacy is extremely important, as revealing it could have a great impact on that person’s life. We have to ensure it and reassure the victim that this is being respected.

Facilitating questions

On the basis of the indicators already discussed, there are certain issues that would facilitate the identification of the person as a potential victim of hate crime:

– Basic facts about the incident: where, how and when it happened. Who was present, who was involved in the aggression, what triggered it, how long before the police were alerted and how long it took for the police to arrive.

– How can we help them, what do they need now?

– Questions related to risk factors: whether they have ever been insulted, humiliated or assaulted on the basis of their identity, whether they have been physically or sexually assaulted or abused, whether they feel safe, whether they feel afraid to go out in the street (depending on where the events took place).

– Issues related to changing behaviours and feelings of support: have theystopped going to some places, have they told someone about this, do they feels that help or support must wait (patient sets the pace), is there is someone for them to confide in?

Attitudes

The interview is a crucial moment in the process and the victim must feel in control. It is necessary to assess whether the victim is particularly vulnerable to repeat violence or secondary victimisation. You should acknowledge the victim’s experience by thanking them for sharing it with you, ensuring confidentiality and maintaining her privacy during the interview.

The intervention must take into account all the realities of the present situation? and in the particular life context of those affected. The family history, the victim’s sources of support, as well as the socio-economic situation, and emotional state of the victim must be taken into account. It requires knowledge, means (time and space that guarantee privacy), consideration of the health issue and the associated social problems. It is essential to work as a team, apply means, techniques and a careful treatment, in accordance with the respect and dignity that the person deserves.

Sensitive, empathetic and respectful attention to the human condition and its fundamental values is required. If possible, inform the victim about the next steps that will be taken and your role in this process. The victim should always be allowed to be accompanied by a person familiar to them if they so request.

5.5. MEDICAL HISTORY AND INJURY REPORT. recording SYSTEM

In the information system, medical records, health programmes, protocols, it is possible to report the findings and indicators that help in the identification and accompaniment of the victim of hate crime. Specifically, we can incorporate these data in the registration and information systems.

We are also interested in the possibility of using the most appropriate and available tools, in the absence of specific spaces and protocols in the different health systems and levels of care, to enable and facilitate the approach to this health problem, which has important emotional impacts and repercussions .

Sometimes victims do not access primary care services (less frequently in emergency services) to treat this health problem, but rather for additional consequences of this or they come for scheduled activities or check ups, follow-up, or for other reasons. In this case, an impromptu identification can be made. Even if the reason for consultation is not specific, with the information provided with greater emphasis on the groups and risk factors, as well as the most frequent signs and symptoms, a distinct diagnosis of hate violence, alongside other health problems should be made

You should record the patient’s personal and social circumstances in the patient’s history to better identify the situation of vulnerability in which they find themselves and record the attacks suffered so that they can be taken into account in the event of possible future aggressions. In a similar way to the gender-based violence protocol, we suggest that it should be read to the person before it is drafted, and their consent should be sought for it to be sent to the court. The steps following the injury report and the consequences of the report should also be explained.

Care should be taken with the language we use, avoiding value judgements or judgements with the use of terms such as “victim” and “aggressor”. Reflect the medical background that could be related to the current hate violence, in order to give the chronological view of the history.

What not to do in the injury report:

– Systematic elaboration as a bureaucratic matter.

– Ignore ethical and moral issues.

– Avoid details and limit yourself to what is objectively witnessed.

– Record only physical injuries.

– Neglect to ask for their consent or to inform of the procedure.

– Provide details of the person’s private life that are unnecessary for possible research and/or without their consent (affiliation, sexual orientation, habits, etc.).

– Collect the victim’s perception (in the sense that the victim’s opinion alone should be decisive for a possible hate crime investigation).

5.6. KEYS TO SPECIFIC ATTENTION

It is a priority to move towards paying specific attention for people who have been subjected to hate violence. To this end, we propose the following keys to specific attention:

– Prevent the care process itself from becoming a process of re-victimisation by avoiding – where possible requiring the victim to recall all the facts.

– Create information and support groups within the health and social care system itself (as there may already be for victims of gender-based violence), where vulnerable people can receive the information and support they need from qualified staff.

– Include the whole team of professionals in hate crime arrest protocols. There is a need for interdisciplinary and inter-institutional approaches.

– Health and social care systems must provide care that will encourage people to rely on institutions not only for the care and attention they need when the assault has been committed, but also for counselling, protection and support when victims return to the public spaces where they are most exposed.

– Action from the State must be demanded to ensure specific and quality care tailored to the needs of victims of hate violence.

– A coordination and training plan should be developed for health professionals with the aim of advancing in the specialisation, professionalisation and coordination of the comprehensive care network for hate violence, guaranteeing comprehensive care services for victims in a standardised and high quality manner.

– Include hate violence as a reason for consultation. Clarify according to the medium or space where it has occurred (internet, social networks, school, workplace, street, etc). Consider the procedure in the preparation of injury reports, request protection measures and restraining orders when necessary.

– Implement specific training plans as needed.

– Regular team and institutional meetings should take place to assess possible improvements on programmes, assessment scales, health protocols and action plans.

– Psychological care and emotional support in the emergency and PC services should be provided, as well as promoting this type of assistance in associations or organisations.

– Make the platforms and helpline numbers more visible to victims so that they can get immediate first aid and other types of assistance if they have doubts about attending emergency services, or going to the police, etc.

– Use the media as instruments for health promotion, and collaborate in the design of programmes, advertisements, platforms, observatories, etc, with the general public, insisting that the injury and harm is not only physical but also emotional/psychological.

11. REFERENCES

Aguilar, M.A. (director) (2015). Manual práctico para la investigación y enjuiciamiento de delitos de odio y discriminación, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.

Anti-Defamation-League (2019). Pyramid of Hate. ADL https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of-hate.pdf

Assiego Cruz, V et al. (2018). Delitos de odio. Guía práctica para la abogacía, Fundación Abogacía Española, Madrid.

Blázquez Peinado, M. D. (2013). La Directiva 2012/29/UE ¿Un paso adelante en materia de protección a las víctimas en la Unión Europea? Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 2013, vol. 17, no 46, p. 897-934

Díaz Herráiz, E. (coord..), 2020. NATIONAL REPORT: SPAIN - Support and advice through health system for hate crimes victims. Proyecto SHELTER, https://stophatedamages.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Spanish-National-Report-DEF-11.01.21.pdf

CIDALIA (2015). Cómo actuar ante casos de discriminación y delitos de odio e intolerancia, Instituto de la Mujer y para la Igualdad de Oportunidades, Madrid.

Colomer, G. S., Esther, B. R. M., & Solé, M. G. (2003). Sociedad abierta y delitos de odio en la era de la globalización. Eguzkilore, 17, 121-132.”

Díaz, J.A. (2018). Informe de delimitación conceptual en materia de delitos de odio, Secretaría General de Inmigración y Emigración, Observatorio Español del Racismo y la Xenofobia, Madrid.

Frucillo, M. (coord.) (2015). Together. Empoderando a la sociedad civil y a la policía para la visibilización de los delitos de odio. Manual de formación, SOS Racismo Gipuzkoa, SOS Racisme Catalunya España), KISA (Chipre ), Organisation for Ad to Refugees OPU (República Checa ), Lunaria , CGIL Lombardía, Universidad Roma Tre (Italia ).

Gil-Borrelli, C. C., Martín-Ríos, M. D., & Rodríguez-Arenas, M. Á. (2018). “Propuesta de actuación para la detección y la atención a víctimas de violencia de odio para profesionales de la salud”. Med. clín, 150 (4), 155-159.

Gil-Borrelli, C.C, Dolores Martín-Ríos, M.D., López Corcuera, L., Reche Martínez, B., Torres Santos-Olmo, R., Muriel Pati, E., Rodríguez-Arenas, M.A. (2020): “Elaboración de un cuestionario de detección de casos de violencia de odio en urgencias hospitalarias”, Gac Sanit 34 (2) Mar-Apr 202022 Mayo 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.01.006

Ibarra, E. (2015). “¿Qué son los delitos de odio?”, http://www.estebanibarra.com/2015/04/que-son-los-delitos-de-odio/

Ibarra , E. et al, (2018). Contra el Discurso de Odio y la Intolerancia. Intolerancia y discurso de odio: amenazas para la democracia. Movimiento contra la Intolerancia.

http://www.educatolerancia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/material-didactico12.-Discurso-de-Odio.pdf

Ibarra, E. (2006) Guía para la Solidaridad con las Víctimas del Odio y la Intolerancia. Atención jurídica. Teléfono de la víctima, Movimiento contra la Intolerancia. http://www.movimientocontralaintolerancia.com/download/didacticos/numero4.pdf

Informe de evolución de los delitos de odio en España de la Secretaría de Estado de Seguridad (2020).

López, A. (2017).” Análisis y evolución de los delitos de odio en España (2011-2015)”. Revista de antropología experimental., 17, 19-37.

Protocolo de Actuación para los Cuerpos y Fuerzas de Seguridad para los “delitos de odio” y Conductas que vulneran las normas legales sobre Discriminación (2015). Instrucción 16/2014 (modificada por instrucción 16/2015): Protocolo de Actuación para los Cuerpos y Fuerzas de Seguridad para los «delitos de odio» y Conductas que vulneran las normas legales sobre Discriminación.

Rodríguez-Arenas, M., Martín-Ríos, M. D., & Gil-Borrelli, C. (2018). “Intervenciones en salud pública contra la violencia de odio”. Gac Sanit vol.32 no.2: 114-116. https://www.gacetasanitaria.org/en-intervenciones-salud-publica-contra-vio

1 Monserrat Pulido Fuentes, Full Professor of Health Sciences at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

2 César Arroyo López, Doctoral student in the Humanities and Education Programme of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

3 Juan Antonio Flores Martos, Full Professor of Social Anthropology at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

4 Roberto Moreno López, Full Professor at the Universidad Internacional de la Rioja and Associate professor at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

5 Rosa Marí Ytarte Full Professor of pedagogy at the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

6 https://stophatedamages.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Spanish-National-Report-DEF-11.01.21.pdf

7 www.stophatedamages.eu

8 http://www.inclusion.gob.es/oberaxe/ficheros/documentos/InformeConceptualDelitosOdio.pdf

9 Protocolo de actuación de las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado para los delitos de odio http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642012/3479677/PROTOCOLO+ACTUACION/99ef64e5-e062-4634-8e58-503a3039761b

10 http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642012/3479677/informe+evolucion+2019/631ce020-f9d0-4feb-901c-c3ee0a777896

11 https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20200421/48664043692/sos-racismo-detecto-en-2019-188-casos-de-racismo-128-de-ellos-denunciados.html

12 Adapted from Frucillo, 2015; e Ibarra, 2006.

13 Following the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the mere perception or feeling, on the part of the victim, that the motive for the crime suffered may be racist, xenophobic or discriminatory should oblige the authorities to carry out an effective and thorough investigation to confirm or rule out that nature. (Protocolo de actuación de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad para los delitos de odio y conductas que vulneran las normas legales sobre discriminación, 2015, p. 16).

14 Perpetrators of hate crimes often clearly express their prejudices before, during or after the act. The crucial evidence in most hate crimes consists of the words or symbols used by the perpetrators themselves. Those who commit hate crimes usually want to send a message to their victims and their communities and these messages, from shouting insults to graffiti, are powerful evidence of a biased motivation.

15 It is important to note that not all hate crimes are perpetrated by organised groups; on the contrary, hate crimes sometimes occur when members or associates of such groups are often involved in the commission of such crimes.

16 Hate crimes tend to be message crimes, therefore the degree of violence, harm and brutality tend to be severe. Hate crimes are message crimes in that the victim is chosen because of their profile, not because of who they are, i.e.: among other things, a message is sent that such an identity is not accepted and therefore has an impact on the entire target group and society as a whole. (Aguilar García, 2015, p. 267)